2024 General Election Predictor - Election Polling

general election odds ireland

general election odds ireland - win

Kaiserreich 0.16 - 'Hindsight is 2020'

What a year it’s been, hey? But as they say, hindsight is 2020 so 0.16 doesn’t bring any new focus trees, instead looking at existing content and bringing an enormous number of tweaks, fixes, quality of life changes, optimisations and more. You won’t have any new nations to play today, but your old favorites will be that much more polished. If you are looking forward to new content, don’t worry, we are working hard there as well; it’ll just be a little longer. Finally, we have broken a lot of the models off from the main mod and into submods. If you don’t care about models you can enjoy the extra space, while if you do you’ll need to subscribe to the new submods (and get many new models in the process). You can find them all in the Official Kaiserreich Collection. Enjoy!
Changes
Notable Additions
Expanded Focus Trees
New Events
New Decisions
New Custom Country Paths
GFX
Music Mod
Mapping
Miscellaneous
Fixes
Notable Fixes
Other Fixes
We hope you enjoy playing Kaiserreich as much as we did making it!
submitted by Flamefang92 to Kaiserreich [link] [comments]

Colab. Britain - Amazing writing, wasted potential.

Having played through all 3 of the paths (Thatcher, SuperMac and Maud) for Collaborationist England, I thought I may as well write an AAR about them all, because honestly, despite all of the amazing writing, I felt disappointed, especially with the United England (UE) paths. I felt there was a lot of wasted potential, more-so with the UE paths, but even with the Thatcher path. But, I'll leave the negatives for the end. I will just note now that I did cheat for all three playthroughs, giving myself infinite PP, because that's how I find it enjoyable to play. For that reason, I won't be talking about balance issues here, this is purely from a story/design perspective. Now, having said that, I'll start with my favourite path:

Margaret Thatcher (AuthDem)

"Thatcher is England, England is Thatcher"
Staying with the incumbent Royal Party (RP) and going with Maggie Thatcher was honestly really fun. The writing in this path was superb, it really made you feel like Thatcher was the Iron Lady. Additionally, the progression of the Focus Tree, going from regular Thatcherist reforms that you expect to authoritarian measures, ensuring that the Royal Party (and more importantly, Thatcher) maintain their hold on England for the foreseeable future. Put simply, it's great.
I did, throughout the game, encounter some issues, however. The main one was that, when it came to foreign policy, I had no way to control OFN and Pakt influence, outside of the focus tree. Due to a glitch (or at least, I'm guessing it was a glitch), OFN influence would increase by "-1" every month (or something along those lines), while Pakt influence was positive. By the end of the game, I had no way to decrease Pakt influence, which meant it was ~60%. This didn't cause any issues (I wasn't forced into the Pakt or anything like that), but it still didn't seem right that the system was like that.
I also felt that the fight over the Royal Party between the 'Old Guard' and Thatcher wasn't really presented that well through gameplay. It never really felt as though there was an actual fight, it just felt like a few buttons I had to press every month to make sure a bar went up. The same can also be said for the populist and elite popularities. Again, just more buttons to press so that the percentage went up. You could argue that this was so easy because I had infinite PP, and I'd perhaps agree to an extent. But a system like this, ideally, should be difficult regardless of whether the player has infinite PP or not. For an example of this, I'd point to the Speer's path in Germany, which I also used infinite PP for, and there were plenty of moments where it was suspenseful & challenging. tl;dr It didn't feel as though there was any challenge when it came to the party/popularity mechanics.
I do also have some issues with the Parliament mechanic, but I'll focus more on that later, as that affects all paths, not just Thatcher's.
Now, I've just typed two paragraphs of negativity about the Thatcher path. But, and I want to make this very clear, Thatcher's path was my favourite. I just find it easier to write about criticism than positive stuff. But I do really like the Thatcher path (it's one of my favourite paths in the mod as a whole), it's just there were a few issues I found with it.

Macmillan/Maudling (ConDem/LibDem)

A wonderful bromance, but who's the Prime Minister again?
Playing through United England's paths is where things started to go downhill. I started with Macmillan, and I did enjoy the writing for his path. Seeing the bromance between Mac and Maud is honestly adorable, and I wouldn't have that any other way. The exchange between them, shared only through glances, before Maud betrays Mac is honestly fantastic. The writing kept the quality I'd seen in the Thatcher path, which I was very thankful for.
However, there was one key question I kept on asking myself: who's the PM again? There are times, before Mac removing Maudling from the role of PM, where he is referred to as the Prime Minister (by Maudling, no less). There are also times after Mac has become PM where Maudling is called the PM (by Mac). While I understood, generally, who was fulfilling each role, it did come across as very confusing at times.
Additionally, there was a key thing I noticed as I was playing through Mac's path: the silence. There are, unlike many countries, very few flavour events for England, which is a massive shame imo, because there's so much you can write about: the effects of the people under each different leader's policies (you could have a member from the lower class, the middle class, and the upper class, and show how their lives change under Thatcher, Mac, and Maud). You could have flavour events covering how people on the street are affected by the passing of a new bill. To be honest, I'd love to see events describing, perhaps at the dawn of a new election, what old Alec Douglas-Home thinks about the Britain he's now left in the hands of others. Is he proud of the progress that his protege, Thatcher, has made, or is he dismayed by her authoritarian control of the state? I'd like to see more of the royals (Edward and Wallis, along with Henry IX), and see how they too react to the changing nation, or hell, just even their own private lives, as they carry on, day-by-day. I just like to see, generally, more flavour for England.

Criticism all the way down

That's not the only issue I found, however. Something else also dawned on me that seemed odd: Wales and Scotland. Why is it so easy to invade Wales, when there are natural barriers (e.g. hills and mountains) in the way of any invading army? It shouldn't be as simple as fighting one battle, walking into Cardiff, and the war's over. Scotland, on the other hand, is harder to invade, as is fitting for an army trying to push into mountains. However, even if you disregard the nature of the invasion/annexation, the nature of the occupation leaves much to be desired. Currently, all that are received are two national spirits (one for Wales, and one for Scotland) that provide negative debuffs, that eventually fade over the course of time. This, to me, seems like an odd decision to make. Why not give the player more of direct control over how the nation is integrated? What happens to Welsh and Scottish culture under the English rule? How does the rule differ under Thatcher; under Mac; under Maud? Not only would this also present another opportunity for flavour (showing how random people are finding the occupation/annexation), it would also allow the player to be more immersed. You could have flavour events showing the effect of the player's choice, perhaps showing the effect of organisations like the FWA on occupied Wales (perhaps they could become the Provisional IRA of TNOTL, if the player lets the situation get too out of hand / maybe under Thatcher if you really want to emphasise the IRL comparisons). Perhaps the Scottish Council, if granted to Scotland, could actually become a key part of English politics, affecting the changes the government wants to make concerning Scotland during their 2nd term. But, speaking of terms:
Why, oh why, is there a requirement for a party to win both elections, otherwise the game ends? While I understand that, for the devs, this is most likely meant to be a failstate, I don't think that should be the case. I mean, you don't see a failstate if you fail to re-elect Wallace in America or a salon in Tomsk, so why should it be the case for England? Imo, having the player choose to only have a party win once presents some unique scenarios, similar to how the American elections work. If Thatcher wins once and then loses, the player could be presented with a choice: Leave Thatcher's reforms as they are (meaning the UE's reforms will never be as full as the party wants), or revert them at the cost of government stability (which I shall get onto) and limited time, as the player will have to take focuses and initiate acts to reverse whatever the player did as Thatcher. And, of course, this would work the other way, with Thatcher winning in the second election, and the player has the same choice to make about the UE's reforms. This would give the player something else to do, rather than just restart the game/load back because they're now stuck in a failstate.
Government stability, as I referenced earlier, should have more of a role to play imo. While currently, it doesn't do anything (to my knowledge), it should really affect much more, and much more should affect it. It makes sense that, following a civil war that any government will be very unstable, even a decade later. Despite what Montgomery says to Home before the latter's resignation (that the military will have no hand in government affairs), if the government is about to collapse, it makes sense that the military should intervene before another civil war occurs (this could actually give some relevance to the army loyalty/efficiency meters, with the former affecting whether or not the government is supported/deposed by the military, and the latter affecting whether or not they actually manage to stop the government collapsing, or just fail, perhaps leading to another civil war (or, if you don't want to have an electable path for the NF, this could be how Chesterton and the Blackshirts take power, seizing parliament during the chaos)). Stability could be affected by the wars in Cornwall, Wales and Scotland, alongside by the ability of the government to pass acts. If wars are lost/the frontlines stall, stability falls, as it does if the government fails to pass an act. If wars are won & acts are passed, then stability increases. This, however, is focusing more on balance, which isn't something I want to focus on here, so I'll end this point here. Overall, I feel government stability can, and should, play much more of a role than it does now (which is to say, no role).
Finally, because I've been typing for way too long (and my hands are beginning to get tired), I'd like to focus on one more factor, which I was surprised to see not mentioned at all: the House of Lords. Now, it is entirely possible that I missed some text saying that they've been abolished, or perhaps some mention of them in some event. However, assuming it hasn't been abolished, it should play much more of a role in British politics and the passing of acts (considering governments in otl have had to contend with the upper house when passing bills), as they have a say on bills passing, being able to amend/reject bills (the latter only in very specific circumstances, with them generally just delaying bills they don't support). Because of this, the relationship of any PM with the HoL is important, especially in Collab Britain. In theory, each PM (Thatcher, Mac and Maud) could approach the HoL in a different way. Mac could, with his more 'elite' values, grant more powers to the upper house, taking powers away from the Commons (boosting his own power in the process). Maud would, in his democratisation efforts, do the opposite, boosting the commons. Perhaps, if democratisation is at 0%, Mac could, in his second term, gain the ability to abolish the Commons completely (or at the very least, limit the lower house' abilities greatly). Same for Maud, with him having the ability to severely limit/abolish the House of Lords if democratisation is at 100% (I do also think democratisation should be harder to gain/lower, but that leans more into balancing issues, which I don't want to focus on here). For Thatcher, I do have a different idea, which kinda encompasses both Mac and Maud's ideas:
Thatcher, in her path, has two popularity percentages: Her popularity with the elites (elitism) and her popularity with the public (populism). These percentages would work well, I think, in relation to the House of Lords and the House of Commons respectively. Her elitism affects her ability to get bills through the upper house, while her populism affects her ability to get bills through the lower house. This would mean that both percentages become something the player has to make sure to keep control of, as opposed to how the system is currently, where you have to wait every month to press the button that increases the percentages so you can do the focus you want. This would also work very well I think with the main narrative going through Thatcher's path (especially her second term): her gaining total control over England. Perhaps she, like Maud and Mac, has some focuses in her second term tree, allowing her to make a decision on Parliament, as part of her increasing power over England. If her populism is higher than her elitism, she could have the ability to limit the powers of the HoL or (if her populism is 100%) completely abolish the house outright (and vice versa for her elitism, in relation to the Commons). But, in line with Thatcher's goal of achieving total control (i.e. England is Thatcher, Thatcher is England), in the event that both populism and elitism are 100%, she can use her popularity to severely limit the powers of both, making both houses subservient to her. This could work as a good reward for players who have actively tried to court favour with both sides, and would also help both percentages be more than just numbers that rise and fall at the press of buttons (I also think that both populism and elitism should be harder to increase/have more variables affecting them, but again, that's more of a balancing point).

If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter - Margaret Thatcher

Jesus Christ, this post is way too long, which is even more surprising when I consider the fact that I didn't even mention everything I wanted to, such as having more info about what Harris is doing after the civil war, the fact that Mac can ban the NF but they'll still have MPs who can vote on acts, the possible reworking of how Pakt & OFN influence works, etc. etc.
But, beyond all of my criticisms, I do want to say one thing. I believe, as the title of this post says, that the writing for collab England is amazing. Thatcher's rise to power and the United England bromance are some of my favourite paths of TNO and I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all those who worked on the writing. And, despite all my problems with the gameplay, I enjoyed my initial game of England immensely, to the point that I even allowdiplo invaded Ireland and West Africa for fun, to round off the game (see below, because this post could use some images).
I don't think that everything I've said in this post should be taken as gospel. It's simply the thoughts of one player, and I'm sure many others (including the devs themselves) have their own views, all of which are obviously valid. Based on the current roadmap, I'm assuming that England won't be receiving any more content (be it for the collabs or for HMMLR) in the near future, which, tbh, is a shame. But, I do look forward to what new content comes, both for England (in perhaps the far future) and for TNO as a whole.
tl;dr: As I said, with the title of this post, Amazing writing; wasted potential.
Britain is Thatcher, Thatcher is Britain
I didn't have the heart to crush De Gaulle's dreams
submitted by ATeaAddict to TNOmod [link] [comments]

Is it time for the Labour Party to finally back Proportional Representation before the next General Election?

While Keir Starmer and the current Labour Frontbench seem almost scared to even consider announcing new party policies, I wanted to raise a discussion on whether or not it is finally time that the Labour Party formally backs Proportional Representation as our new voting system.
It is no secret that the current electoral system is a flawed two party system and favours the Conservative Party too much, which will now be made worse by the upcoming electoral boundary changes that are essentially gerrymandering in all but name.
Labour have been out of power for over ten years now and the party faces a mammoth task to try and gain around 120 seats in the next election if they want to have a majority of just one. Landslides like this have happened in the past with the likes of Tony Blair, however the odds are very slim and I feel the stakes are too high to gamble on the small chances of Labour managing to pull this off.
Henceforth I believe it is time that Labour backs Proportional Representation and encourages the smaller parties of Westminster - namely the Liberal Democrats and the Greens - to lend them their votes in the next election and stand aside in key target sides in order to ensure Labour wins a majority in the next election so that they can roll through Proportional Representation.
This is in Labour's interest in order to finally get the murderous Conservatives out of Westminster, end austerity after eleven years of it and put through a more progressive and representative voting system.
The political union has also been greatly threatened in recent years following strong support for Scottish Independence and Northern Ireland being threatened with different treatment to the rest of the UK in recent Brexit talks. With much of the United Kingdom feeling more disunited, having a more balanced voting system in Proportional Representation could help to restore faith in our democracy and truly make all votes across the entire country count, with all voices of the UK - English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish - being included.
After years of political instability and uncertainty, coupled with the diminished odds of Labour securing a majority in the next General Election and thousands being indirectly murdered by the Conservatives through austerity and deliberate Lockdown in-competencies, I feel that it is in the national interest for the voting system to be changed to Proportional Representation and that Labour are the only ones who can deliver it.
submitted by I-am-the-Peel to LabourUK [link] [comments]

How does American democracy compare with democracy in the rest of the world? Part 2: divided-power.

Welcome to part two of my two-part series comparing American democracy with the rest of the world, based on the modern classic of comparative politics Patterns of Democracy (2nd edition) by Arend Lijphart (rhymes with pipe-heart), published in 2012. Yes, part one is very long (and very fascinating, I’m told), but you don’t need to read it unless you want to, because I’ll briefly summarize the parts you need to understand.
In his book, Lijphart classifies democracies into two broad categories, based on the question: who should the government be responsive to when the people are in disagreement? The answer provided by the majoritarian model of democracy is that government should be responsive to a majority of the people, or often in practice, a plurality of the people. In contrast, the consensus model of democracy accepts support from the majority as only a minimum requirement, and instead seeks to foster broad participation in government and broad agreement on policies.
There are two complementary approaches to building a consensus democracy (or building a majoritarian democracy, if the antithesis of each approach is used). The first, the joint-power approach, seeks to broadly share power within institutions, for example multiparty systems, proportional representation, and coalition cabinets. In contrast, the divided-power approach diffuses power across separate institutions, for example across central and regional governments (federalism), upper and lower houses of the legislature (bicameralism), independent central banks, and constitutional courts with the power of judicial review.
Note that these two approaches are complementary, not mutually exclusive. A democracy can embrace both joint-power and divided-power approaches, reject both, or embrace one while rejecting the other. As such, every democracy can be roughly divided into one of 4 quadrants. Here is a table displaying a prototypical democracy from each quadrant.
  joint-power non-joint-power
non-divided-power Israel UK
divided-power Switzerland USA
The United States’ approach to democracy almost uniformly rejects joint-power, while embracing divided-power, so we sit somewhere between a majoritarian democracy like the UK and a consensus democracy like Switzerland. In the last post I discussed non-joint-power in the United States, and in this post I’ll be covering divided-power.
At the end, I’ll finish up with Lijphart’s conclusions on the effectiveness of consensus democracy vs. majoritarian democracy in general (spoiler: consensus democracy is better), and I’ll give my thoughts on the future of democratic institutional reform in the United States.

Divided-power in the United States

Let’s take another look at Lijphart’s conceptual map of democracy (democracies further to the left embrace the joint-power approach, while those toward the bottom embrace divided-power). As you can see from the conceptual map, out of the 36 sufficiently large and long-lived democracies in Lijphart’s sample, the United States ranks as a very close second to Germany in its strong approach to divided-power. Other notable divided-power democracies include Australia, Argentina, Canada, and Switzerland, with Switzerland being the joint-power black sheep of the group (Germany is also joint-power, but not to the same extent).
Lijphart describes five institutions that can be used to build a divided-power democracy, and the United States has fine examples of all of them.
  1. A federal government instead of a unitary government
  2. A bicameral legislature instead of a unicameral legislature.
  3. A rigid constitution that can only be changed by an extraordinary majority, as opposed to a flexible constitution that can be changed by a simple majority.
  4. A Supreme Court with the power to review legislation, rather than the legislature having the final say on the constitutionality of its own legislation.
  5. A central bank that is independent from the executive, as opposed to a central bank that is controlled by the executive.
Let’s talk about each of these aspects of divided-power, and how they are implemented in the United States in comparison to the rest of the world.

An exceptionally strong federalism

At its most basic, federalism means that there is a guaranteed division of power between central and regional governments. But how do we guarantee that such a division of power remains stable? There are typically three institutions that serve that purpose. Notice that these are the same as 2, 3, and 4 in the list of divided-power institutions above.
  1. A bicameral legislature with a strong second chamber dedicated to representing the regions of the federation.
  2. A written constitution outlining the federal division of power. To keep the division of power stable this constitution needs to be rigid, meaning that it should be difficult to amend.
  3. A supreme or constitutional court that can protect the constitution with the power of judicial review, meaning that the court has the final say on the constitutionality of executive and legislative actions.
What is federalism good for though? Federalism is particularly well suited to very large countries (in terms of both population and geographic size), and to very diverse countries (in terms of religions, ethnic groups, languages spoken, etc.).
The United States is the second most populous democracy in the world, with the first being India, which is also federal. The least populous federation is Switzerland, though it is still relatively large, being approximately in the middle of Lijphart’s 36 countries ranked by population.
In terms of diversity, the US is only semi-diverse according to Lijphart’s classification, and in any case, state lines are not and probably could not be drawn with regard to separate racial, ethnic, and religious groups, as they can be in some other countries.
In the case of India, a highly diverse society, British colonial authorities drew administrative lines without regard for linguistic differences, an unfortunate situation which was not corrected until the 1950’s, providing additional representation for linguistic minorities. Canada and Switzerland are other examples of federations with regional lines drawn (at least roughly) to contain cultural and linguistic minorities.
It’s not common, but for diverse societies it’s also possible to have federal territories that are not defined geographically, for example Belgium’s three cultural communities.
There is another possible purpose of federalism, and that is to allow the regions to experiment with different forms of government. In practice, however, regional governments tend to be extremely similar to the central government. If you’ve ever wondered why almost every US state has a bicameral legislature, even though state governments are not federal and some states are extremely small, then there’s your answer: there is no good reason, except that it mirrors the form of the central government. Presidentialism, too, has leaked into the states, with governors essentially acting as presidents for each state, despite the flaws of presidentialism I went over in the first post.
There has been some experimentation with electoral systems among the states, for example ranked choice voting for congressional and presidential elections in Alaska and Maine and for local elections in many other states. There has only been one notable exception when it comes to majority/plurality electoral systems, in the state of Illinois, which used cumulative voting (a semi-proportional method) for its lower house from 1870 to 1980.
Another notable case outside of the USA is Australia, with the state of Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory using the single-transferable-vote form of proportional representation for electing their regional assemblies, unlike the Australian House of Representatives and the regional lower houses of every other Australian state which all use ranked choice voting, a majority/plurality voting method. However, single-transferable-vote is far from unheard of in Australia, as it is also used to elect the national Senate.
Of course, in the United States there has been a great degree of experimentation with state laws, including of taxation, drug prohibition, environmental regulations, etc. This has allowed some states to learn from the experiments of others, and at times has allowed certain states to lag far behind the others, depending on your perspective.

Bicameralism taken too far?

Bicameralism, meaning the division of the legislature into two differently constituted chambers, is closely associated with federalism, as the purpose of the second chamber is typically to give additional representation to the regions of the federation. In Lijphart’s sample, all 9 of the federal countries are bicameral, while only about half of the 27 remaining non-federal countries are bicameral. The unicameral countries tend to have smaller populations. Worldwide, about ⅔ of countries are unicameral.
Typically, the first chamber tends to be the more important of the two, with the second chamber in a subordinate role, though there are notable exceptions: the United States, Argentina, Italy, Switzerland, and Uruguay all have chambers with approximately equal powers, or arguably in the case of the United States, greater powers. Second chambers that are directly elected tend to be more powerful, as direct election gives the second chamber additional democratic legitimacy and thus greater political influence, which is true for the five countries with powerful second chambers except for Switzerland, where most but not all members of the second chamber are directly elected.
Some less important differences are that the first chamber also tends to be the larger one (with the only exception being the British House of Lords). Terms of office tend to be longer in second chambers, and second chambers tend to have staggered elections.
One of the most important differences is that second chambers are often designed to overrepresent certain minorities, the most common example being the overrepresentation of regions with smaller populations, as seen in federalism. In this table you can see the degree to which different countries overrepresent the smaller regions.
The three countries with the greatest degree of overrepresentation of smaller regions are Argentina, the United States, and Switzerland. These are also countries where all regions have equal representation in the second chamber regardless of population size. The same is true of Australia, which ranks 5th on the chart. In the United States, a staggering 10% of the best represented voters control 39.7% of the seats in the Senate. Other countries like Germany and Canada give greater, but not equal, representation to smaller regions, while Belgium gives only slight overrepresentation to its French and German-speaking minorities.
In the United States the second chamber has some unique powers, such as ratifying treaties and confirming members of the federal judiciary, that the first chamber does not have. This, combined with the Supreme Court being one of the most powerful activist courts in the world, has produced an unusual situation where a minority controls an arguably more powerful second chamber. And the situation is only getting worse: by 2040, two-thirds of Americans will be represented by only 30% of the Senate.
Having a bicameral legislature with special representation for smaller regions is an important guarantor of federalism, but as we can see from other countries like Canada, Australia, and Germany, the amount of overrepresentation seen in the United States is not necessary to maintain a strong form of federalism. Only time will tell whether the United States can maintain a stable and legitimate government in a state of continually strengthening minority rule.

The most rigid constitution in the world

A rigid federal constitution is another important guarantor of federalism, and the United States has the least flexible constitution in the world, with two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate as well as the approval of 3/4ths of the states being required to pass a constitutional amendment. There are several other countries where supermajorities are required, as you can see in this table, but not to the same degree as in the United States. It is one of the reasons the United States has the shortest written constitution in the world at 4,400 words, despite being one of the oldest constitutions.
Having a constitution is not itself enough to guarantee federalism, an institution is also needed to defend the constitution. Independent courts with the power of judicial review fulfill that purpose, and the United States has one of the most vigorous federal courts, as you can see in this table. The German Constitutional Court arguably ranks in second place. Judicial review is particularly strong in several other countries besides the USA and Germany: India, and recently, Canada, Costa Rica, and Argentina. When it comes to the United States, Lijphart notes that, “The activist American courts and the Supreme Court in particular have been accused of forming an ‘imperial judiciary.’”
A rigid constitution and the courts with independent review to back it up are an important anti-majoritarian device, while having a flexible constitution and no judicial review allow unrestricted majority rule. The UK is a prime example of majority rule, and is also one of only 3 democracies of Lijphart’s 36 with no written constitution, the other 2 being New Zealand and Israel. Switzerland is an odd outlier, being an otherwise completely consensual democracy with no judicial review, despite having a strong form of federalism. Perhaps this demonstrates that judicial review is helpful, but not essential, to maintaining federalism.

The paradox of the US Supreme Court

As explained in the last section, activist courts with the power of judicial review are an anti-majoritarian device, but the US Supreme Court is majoritarian in its makeup in almost every respect, in contrast to the German Constitutional Court and the Indian Supreme Court which follow a more consensual pattern.
One example of the Supreme Court’s majoritarianism is its small number of justices, only 9, compared with 16 in Germany and 29 in India. This places a hard limit on the amount of broad representation of different population groups on the Supreme Court. A second majoritarian aspect is that justices are chosen by majority in the Senate, unlike the two-thirds majorities required in both German chambers. The court itself makes decisions by majority, which increases the power of the court to make decisions, but decreases the consensual nature of the decision-making.
There are a couple more reasons the Supreme Court is majoritarian in its makeup: one is that vacancies are filled as they occur, allowing majorities to sequentially pick their favorites, whereas if justices were chosen as a group it would be more likely for minorities to be chosen. A second reason is that US justices have very long terms, which tends to be an obstacle to broad representation in an evolving society. In Germany and India, justices have mandatory retirement ages of 68 and 65, respectively, and in Germany they are chosen to 12 year non-renewable terms.
This paradox of a consensual institution with majoritarian rules is seen not only in the Supreme Court, but in many other institutions of American democracy. The presidency, for example, represents a division of power between the executive and legislative, an expression of divided-power, while the presidency itself, a single person elected by majority, is the antithesis of consensus decision making.

One of the most independent central banks… at least until the 90’s.

Central banks are crucial policy-making institutions, particularly when they are strong and independent. Having a strong and independent central bank is an important aspect of the divided-power approach to building a consensus democracy (recall that an independent central bank is one of the five divided-power institutions enumerated above).
The most important duty of central banks is making monetary policy – the regulation of interest rates and the supply of money, which in turn has effects on price stability, inflation, unemployment, economic growth, and the business cycle.
According to the Cukierman Index of Independence, central banks are at their most independent when they have exclusive jurisdiction over monetary policy and their only or primary task is to maintain price stability. Central banks may be less strong when they have multiple, possibly conflicting goals, such as both price stability and full employment. Other important aspects of bank independence are the independence of the bank’s governor from the executive, and when the bank is in full control of the terms of lending to the central government.
Until around 1994, central bank independence was strongly correlated with federalism, another important divided-power institution, and the five central banks with the greatest independence were all federal systems: Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Austria, and Canada. As you can see in this table (continued here), these five banks reigned supreme as the most independent central banks in the world for 50 years, from 1945 to 1994.
After 1994, many European central banks became remarkably more independent as a condition for participating in the euro, per the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, for example the Spanish, French, and Italian central banks which all increased by approximately .5 on the Cukierman Index in 1994, easily surpassing the United States. The establishment of the European Central Bank in 1998 and the adoption of the euro transformed the central bank for those countries into an element of the international system. After that, the correlation between federalism and central bank independence shrank considerably, as the central bank was no longer a domestic institution, following the same divided-power approach as the rest of the domestic government.
The United States, in contrast, has remained completely static from 1945 until the present day, with a Cukierman Index of .56, putting it in 17th place among Lijphart’s 36 major democracies as of 2010. It’s beyond the scope of Lijphart’s book, and my own expertise, to say whether this has had any effect on economic growth or the ability of the Federal Reserve to maintain price stability, compared to EU countries.

Categorizing democracies using joint-power and divided-power

I want to talk about how majoritarian and consensus democracies perform in practice in the next section, but first, I would be amiss if I didn’t mention what Liphart describes as “one of the most important general findings of this book”, which is that the five variables representing divided-power tend to be clustered with one another, and also the five variables representing joint-power tend to be clustered with one another.
For example, democracies which are federalist also tend to have bicameralism, constitutional rigidity, judicial review, and central bank independence (that last one only prior to 1994), all examples of divided-power institutions. Likewise, democracies with a lower percentage of minimal winning one-party cabinets also tend to have more political parties, less executive dominance, more proportional election systems, and greater interest group pluralism, all important divided-power institutions. Take a look at this factor analysis for a more precise picture. The numbers may be thought of as the correlation coefficient between the variable and factor 1 and 2, which represent joint-power and divided-power, respectively.
Meanwhile, between the two approaches, joint-power and divided-power, there is very little correlation, for example federalism is not well correlated with the number of political parties. The United States is a perfect example of mixing the two approaches, as it closely adheres to the divided-power approach, while rejecting joint-power. These correlations are of immense interest to comparative political scientists, because it represents a useful way to categorize democracies along two dimensions.
How is it that democracies end up embracing either of the two approaches? Taking another look at the conceptual map, one of the most striking patterns is that countries on the right side, the non-joint-power side, tend to be former British colonies, with some exceptions such as Argentina, Costa Rica, Greece, Spain, South Korea, and France. As Lijphart notes: “France is an especially interesting exceptional case: in view of French president de Gaulle’s deeply felt and frequently expressed antagonism towards les anglo-saxons, it is ironic that the republic he created is the most Anglo-Saxon of any of the continental European democracies.” The left side of the map, in contrast, includes most of the continental European democracies, and all five of the Nordic countries, which have a common Scandinavian cultural heritage of consensus decision making and arbitration.
There are some exceptions on the left side as well (the joint-power side): Ireland, India, Israel, and Mauritius all were formerly under British colonial rule, the difference is that these are highly plural societies, where majoritarianism and its associated non-joint-power approach just do not work well in practice, often leading to sectarian violence, as I explained in the first post.
What about the divided-power approach, signified by the bottom of the conceptual map? As explained earlier in this post, the size of the country (both in terms of population and geographic size), as well as diversity, are significantly correlated with the divided-power approach. In other words, the countries embracing divided-power tend to be larger and more diverse.

Wrapping up: majoritarian vs. consensus democracy

So how do majoritarian and consensus democracies stack up in practice? The conventional wisdom is that majoritarian democracies are less representative of the population, but are more decisive, and therefore better at governing effectively. Lijphart argues that faster decisions are not always wiser decisions, in fact the opposite is often true, and policies that are supported by broad consensus are more likely to be successfully implemented. He also observes that non-joint-power democracies like the United States have the disadvantage of frequently flip-flopping between contrasting policies whenever government control changes hands from one party to the other.
Lijphart runs a regression on 17 indicators of government performance, such as government effectiveness, rule of law, and control of corruption, and finds that the joint-power approach is favorably correlated to a statistically significant degree with 9 out of 17 of them, while non-joint-power is only correlated with economic growth, but not to a statistically significant degree. In general, all of the correlations with economic variables are weak, such as with unemployment, budget balance, and economic freedom. Divided-power, meanwhile, has such weak correlations with all of the government performance variables that no firm conclusions can be drawn.
Lijphart concludes that while joint-power democracies are not necessarily proven better than majoritarian democracies at all aspects of governing, they are almost certainly not worse, as the conventional wisdom goes, and along many aspects they are significantly better.
One major exception is that when it comes to the control of violence, joint-power is very strongly correlated with a lower degree of violence, an intuitive result considering the discussion in my first post of the incompatibility between majoritarianism and diverse societies, as exemplified by Northern Ireland.

Consensus democracy: the “kinder, gentler” democracy

Consensus democracies may not always be superior decision makers, but Lijphart is able to draw other conclusions on the tendencies of joint-power democracies, but not so much on divided-power. He finds that joint-power democracies are more likely to be welfare states, have a better record of protecting the environment, put fewer people in prison and are less likely to have the death penalty, and are more generous with economic assistance to developing nations.
When it comes to putting people in prison, the United States is such an extreme outlier among other democracies that Lijphart found it necessary to remove it from the analysis, but still, the effect of joint-power on incarceration rates was strongly negative and statistically significant. The USA has 743 prisoners per hundred thousand people, twice as many as the next democracy in Lijphart’s analysis, the Bahamas. Even extending the analysis to non-democracies, the USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with either Russia or China in second place, depending on the survey.
When it comes to government effectiveness and “kinder, gentler” policies in general, the problem with all of these correlations, as Lijphart points out, is that culture may be a confounding variable, and “consensus democracy may not be able to take root and thrive unless it is supported by a consensual political culture.” But he offers hope that the cause-and-effect may go both ways: consensual democratic institutions may have the effect of making an adversarial political culture more consensual. Switzerland and Austria have not always had a consensual culture, their histories being marked by violent strife, while today Belgium, India, and Israel have adversarial cultures and consensual institutions. One hopes that over time those country’s institutions will have a positive effect on their contentious political cultures.

Where does the United States go from here?

The bad news is that the United States is probably not going to change one bit along the joint-power and divided-power dimensions. Some few countries have made a move towards federalism over time, and even more rarely a handful of countries such as New Zealand have moved towards proportional representation and a joint-power approach, but in general all democracies have been extremely stable along the joint-power and divided-power dimensions from 1945 to 2010, especially the United States, with its exceptionally rigid constitution. The bottom line: if you’re an American looking for a relatively “kinder, gentler” democracy with more proportional political representation, your best bet is to pack your bags.
However, if you are ever in the extraordinary position of framing a new constitution or amending one, my advice is to learn from our experience and the experience of other democracies around the world: avoid presidentialism like the plague, embrace the parliamentary system, and adopt a proportional electoral system. This advice is doubly important for highly diverse societies, where majoritarianism (particularly of the non-joint-power variety) frequently leads to violence.
submitted by sub_surfer to neoliberal [link] [comments]

The Ancient Mysteries and Secret Societies Which Have Influenced Modern Masonic Symbolism

The Ancient Mysteries and Secret Societies Which Have Influenced Modern Masonic Symbolism
WHEN confronted with a problem involving the use of the reasoning faculties, individuals of strong intellect keep their poise, and seek to reach a solution by obtaining facts bearing upon the question. Those of immature mentality, on the other hand, when similarly confronted, are overwhelmed. While the former may be qualified to solve the riddle of their own destiny, the latter must be led like a flock of sheep and taught in simple language. They depend almost entirely upon the ministrations of the shepherd. The Apostle Paul said that these little ones must be fed with milk, but that meat is the food of strong men. Thoughtlessness is almost synonymous with childishness, while thoughtfulness is symbolic of maturity.
There are, however, but few mature minds in the world; and thus it was that the philosophic-religious doctrines of the pagans were divided to meet the needs of these two fundamental groups of human intellect--one philosophic, the other incapable of appreciating the deeper mysteries of life. To the discerning few were revealed the esoteric, or spiritual, teachings, while the unqualified many received only the literal, or exoteric, interpretations. In order to make simple the great truths of Nature and the abstract principles of natural law, the vital forces of the universe were personified, becoming the gods and goddesses of the ancient mythologies. While the ignorant multitudes brought their offerings to the altars of Priapus and Pan (deities representing the procreative energies), the wise recognized in these marble statues only symbolic concretions of great abstract truths.
In all cities of the ancient world were temples for public worship and offering. In every community also were philosophers and mystics, deeply versed in Nature's lore. These individuals were usually banded together, forming seclusive philosophic and religious schools. The more important of these groups were known as the Mysteries. Many of the great minds of antiquity were initiated into these secret fraternities by strange and mysterious rites, some of which were extremely cruel. Alexander Wilder defines the Mysteries as "Sacred dramas performed at stated periods. The most celebrated were those of Isis, Sabazius, Cybele, and Eleusis." After being admitted, the initiates were instructed in the secret wisdom which had been preserved for ages. Plato, an initiate of one of these sacred orders, was severely criticized because in his writings he revealed to the public many of the secret philosophic principles of the Mysteries.
Every pagan nation had (and has) not only its state religion, but another into which the philosophic elect alone have gained entrance. Many of these ancient cults vanished from the earth without revealing their secrets, but a few have survived the test of ages and their mysterious symbols are still preserved. Much of the ritualism of Freemasonry is based on the trials to which candidates were subjected by the ancient hierophants before the keys of wisdom were entrusted to them.
Few realize the extent to which the ancient secret schools influenced contemporary intellects and, through those minds, posterity. Robert Macoy, 33°, in his General History of Freemasonry, pays a magnificent tribute to the part played by the ancient Mysteries in the rearing of the edifice of human culture. He says, in part: "It appears that all the perfection of civilization, and all the advancement made in philosophy, science, and art among the ancients are due to those institutions which, under the veil of mystery, sought to illustrate the sublimest truths of religion, morality, and virtue, and impress them on the hearts of their disciples.* * * Their chief object was to teach the doctrine of one God, the resurrection of man to eternal life, the dignity of the human soul, and to lead the people to see the shadow of the deity, in the beauty, magnificence, and splendor of the universe."
With the decline of virtue, which has preceded the destruction of every nation of history, the Mysteries became perverted. Sorcery took the place of the divine magic. Indescribable practices (such as the Bacchanalia) were introduced, and perversion ruled supreme; for no institution can be any better than the members of which it is composed. In despair, the few who were true sought to preserve the secret doctrines from oblivion. In some cases they succeeded, but more often the arcanum was lost and only the empty shell of the Mysteries remained.
Thomas Taylor has written, "Man is naturally a religious animal." From the earliest dawning of his consciousness, man has worshiped and revered things as symbolic of the invisible, omnipresent, indescribable Thing, concerning which he could discover practically nothing. The pagan Mysteries opposed the Christians during the early centuries of their church, declaring that the new faith (Christianity) did not demand virtue and integrity as requisites for salvation. Celsus expressed himself on the subject in the following caustic terms:
"That I do not, however, accuse the Christians more bitterly than truth compels, may be conjectured from hence, that the cryers who call men to other mysteries proclaim as follows: 'Let him approach whose hands are pure, and whose words are wise.' And again, others proclaim: 'Let him approach who is pure from all wickedness, whose soul is not conscious of any evil, and who leads a just and upright life.' And these things are proclaimed by those who promise a purification from error. Let us now hear who those are that are called to the Christian mysteries: Whoever is a sinner, whoever is unwise, whoever is a fool, and whoever, in short, is miserable, him the kingdom of God will receive. Do you not, therefore, call a sinner, an unjust man, a thief, a housebreaker, a wizard, one who is sacrilegious, and a robber of sepulchres? What other persons would the cryer nominate, who should call robbers together?"
It was not the true faith of the early Christian mystics that Celsus attacked, but the false forms that were creeping in even during his day. The ideals of early Christianity were based upon the high moral standards of the pagan Mysteries, and the first Christians who met under the city of Rome used as their places of worship the subterranean temples of Mithras, from whose cult has been borrowed much of the sacerdotalism of the modem church.
The ancient philosophers believed that no man could live intelligently who did not have a fundamental knowledge of Nature and her laws. Before man can obey, he must understand, and the Mysteries were devoted to instructing man concerning the operation of divine law in the terrestrial sphere. Few of the early cults actually worshiped anthropomorphic deities, although their symbolism might lead one to believe they did. They were moralistic rather than religionistic; philosophic rather than theologic. They taught man to use his faculties more intelligently, to be patient in the face of adversity, to be courageous when confronted by danger, to be true in the midst of temptation, and, most of all, to view a worthy life as the most acceptable sacrifice to God, and his body as an altar sacred to the Deity.
Sun worship played an important part in nearly all the early pagan Mysteries. This indicates the probability of their Atlantean origin, for the people of Atlantis were sun worshipers. The Solar Deity was usually personified as a beautiful youth, with long golden hair to symbolize the rays of the sun. This golden Sun God was slain by wicked ruffians, who personified the evil principle of the universe. By means of certain rituals and ceremonies, symbolic of purification and regeneration, this wonderful God of Good was brought back to life and became the Savior of His people. The secret processes whereby He was resurrected symbolized those cultures by means of which man is able to overcome his lower nature, master his appetites, and give expression to the higher side of himself. The Mysteries were organized for the purpose of assisting the struggling human creature to reawaken the spiritual powers which, surrounded by the flaming.
​
A FEMALE HIEROPHANT OF THE MYSTERIES
From Montfaucon's Antiquities.
This illustration shows Cybele, here called the Syrian Goddess, in the robes of a hierophant. Montfaucon describes the figure as follows: "Upon her head is an episcopal mitre, adorned on the lower part with towers and pinnacles; over the gate of the city is a crescent, and beneath the circuit of the walls a crown of rays. The Goddess wears a sort of surplice, exactly like the surplice of a priest or bishop; and upon the surplice a tunic, which falls down to the legs; and over all an episcopal cope, with the twelve signs of the Zodiac wrought on the borders. The figure hath a lion on each side, and holds in its left hand a Tympanum, a Sistrum, a Distaff, a Caduceus, and another instrument. In her right hand she holds with her middle finger a thunderbolt, and upon the same am animals, insects, and, as far as we may guess, flowers, fruit, a bow, a quiver, a torch, and a scythe." The whereabouts of the statue is unknown, the copy reproduced by Montfaucon being from drawings by Pirro Ligorio.
ring of lust and degeneracy, lay asleep within his soul. In other words, man was offered a way by which he could regain his lost estate. (See Wagner's Siegfried.)
In the ancient world, nearly all the secret societies were philosophic and religious. During the mediæval centuries, they were chiefly religious and political, although a few philosophic schools remained. In modern times, secret societies, in the Occidental countries, are largely political or fraternal, although in a few of them, as in Masonry, the ancient religious and philosophic principles still survive.
Space prohibits a detailed discussion of the secret schools. There were literally scores of these ancient cults, with branches in all parts of the Eastern and Western worlds. Some, such as those of Pythagoras and the Hermetists, show a decided Oriental influence, while the Rosicrucians, according to their own proclamations, gained much of their wisdom from Arabian mystics. Although the Mystery schools are usually associated with civilization, there is evidence that the most uncivilized peoples of prehistoric times had a knowledge of them. Natives of distant islands, many in the lowest forms of savagery, have mystic rituals and secret practices which, although primitive, are of a decided Masonic tinge.

THE DRUIDIC MYSTERIES OF BRITAIN AND GAUL

"The original and primitive inhabitants of Britain, at some remote period, revived and reformed their national institutes. Their priest, or instructor, had hitherto been simply named Gwydd, but it was considered to have become necessary to divide this office between the national, or superior, priest and another whose influence [would] be more limited. From henceforth the former became Der-Wydd (Druid), or superior instructor, and [the latter] Go-Wydd, or O-Vydd (Ovate), subordinate instructor; and both went by the general name of Beirdd (Bards), or teachers of wisdom. As the system matured and augmented, the Bardic Order consisted of three classes, the Druids, Beirdd Braint, or privileged Bards, and Ovates." (See Samuel Meyrick and Charles Smith, The Costume of The Original Inhabitants of The British Islands.)
The origin of the word Druid is under dispute. Max Müller believes that, like the Irish word Drui, it means "the men of the oak trees." He further draws attention to the fact that the forest gods and tree deities of the Greeks were called dryades. Some believe the word to be of Teutonic origin; others ascribe it to the Welsh. A few trace it to the Gaelic druidh, which means "a wise man" or "a sorcerer." In Sanskrit the word dru means "timber."
At the time of the Roman conquest, the Druids were thoroughly ensconced in Britain and Gaul. Their power over the people was unquestioned, and there were instances in which armies, about to attack each other, sheathed their swords when ordered to do so by the white-robed Druids. No undertaking of great importance was scatted without the assistance of these patriarchs, who stood as mediators between the gods and men. The Druidic Order is deservedly credited with having had a deep understanding of Nature and her laws. The Encyclopædia Britannica states that geography, physical science, natural theology, and astrology were their favorite studies. The Druids had a fundamental knowledge of medicine, especially the use of herbs and simples. Crude surgical instruments also have been found in England and Ireland. An odd treatise on early British medicine states that every practitioner was expected to have a garden or back yard for the growing of certain herbs necessary to his profession. Eliphas Levi, the celebrated transcendentalist, makes the following significant statement:
"The Druids were priests and physicians, curing by magnetism and charging amylets with their fluidic influence. Their universal remedies were mistletoe and serpents' eggs, because these substances attract the astral light in a special manner. The solemnity with which mistletoe was cut down drew upon this plant the popular confidence and rendered it powerfully magnetic. * * * The progress of magnetism will some day reveal to us the absorbing properties of mistletoe. We shall then understand the secret of those spongy growths which drew the unused virtues of plants and become surcharged with tinctures and savors. Mushrooms, truffles, gall on trees, and the different kinds of mistletoe will be employed with understanding by a medical science, which will be new because it is old * * * but one must not move quicker than science, which recedes that it may advance the further. " (See The History of Magic.)
Not only was the mistletoe sacred as symbolic of the universal medicine, or panacea, but also because of the fact that it grew upon the oak tree. Through the symbol of the oak, the Druids worshiped the Supreme Deity; therefore, anything growing upon that tree was sacred to Him. At certain seasons, according to the positions of the sun, moon, and stars, the Arch-Druid climbed the oak tree and cut the mistletoe with a golden sickle consecrated for that service. The parasitic growth was caught in white cloths provided for the purpose, lest it touch the earth and be polluted by terrestrial vibrations. Usually a sacrifice of a white bull was made under the tree.
The Druids were initiates of a secret school that existed in their midst. This school, which closely resembled the Bacchic and Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece or the Egyptian rites of Isis and Osiris, is justly designated the Druidic Mysteries. There has been much speculation concerning the secret wisdom that the Druids claimed to possess. Their secret teachings were never written, but were communicated orally to specially prepared candidates. Robert Brown, 32°, is of the opinion that the British priests secured their information from Tyrian and Phœnician navigators who, thousands of years before the Christian Era, established colonies in Britain and Gaul while searching for tin. Thomas Maurice, in his Indian Antiquities, discourses at length on Phœnician, Carthaginian, and Greek expeditions to the British Isles for the purpose of procuring tin. Others are of the opinion that the Mysteries as celebrated by the Druids were of Oriental origin, possibly Buddhistic.
The proximity of the British Isles to the lost Atlantis may account for the sun worship which plays an important part in the rituals of Druidism. According to Artemidorus, Ceres and Persephone were worshiped on an island close to Britain with rites and ceremonies similar to those of Samothrace. There is no doubt that the Druidic Pantheon includes a large number of Greek and Roman deities. This greatly amazed Cæsar during his conquest of Britain and Gaul, and caused him to affirm that these tribes adored Mercury, Apollo, Mars, and Jupiter, in a manner similar to that of the Latin countries. It is almost certain that the Druidic Mysteries were not indigenous to Britain or Gaul, but migrated from one of the more ancient civilizations.
The school of the Druids was divided into three distinct parts, and the secret teachings embodied therein are practically the same as the mysteries concealed under the allegories of Blue Lodge Masonry. The lowest of the three divisions was that of Ovate (Ovydd). This was an honorary degree, requiring no special purification or preparation. The Ovates dressed in green, the Druidic color of learning, and were expected to know something about medicine, astronomy, poetry if possible, and sometimes music. An Ovate was an individual admitted to the Druidic Order because of his general excellence and superior knowledge concerning the problems of life.
The second division was that of Bard (Beirdd). Its members were robed in sky-blue, to represent harmony and truth, and to them was assigned the labor of memorizing, at least in part, the twenty thousand verses of Druidic sacred poetry. They were often pictured with the primitive British or Irish harp--an instrument strung with human hair, and having as many strings as there were ribs on one side of the human body. These Bards were often chosen as teachers of candidates seeking entrance into the Druidic Mysteries. Neophytes wore striped robes of blue, green, and white, these being the three sacred colors of the Druidic Order.
The third division was that of Druid (Derwyddon). Its particular labor was to minister to the religious needs of the people. To reach this dignity, the candidate must first become a Bard Braint. The Druids always dressed in white--symbolic of their purity, and the color used by them to symbolize the sun.
In order to reach the exalted position of Arch-Druid, or spiritual head of the organization, it was necessary for a priest to pass through the six successive degrees of the Druidic Order. (The members of the different degrees were differentiated by the colors of their sashes, for all of them wore robes of white.) Some writers are of the opinion that the title of Arch-Druid was hereditary, descending from father to son, but it is more probable that the honor was conferred by ballot election. Its recipient was chosen for his virtues and
THE ARCH-DRUID IN HIS CEREMONIAL ROBES.
From Wellcome's Ancient Cymric Medicine.
The most striking adornment of the Arch-Druid was the iodhan moran, or breastplate of judgment, which possessed the mysterious Power of strangling any who made an untrue statement while wearing it. Godfrey Higgins states that this breastplate was put on the necks of witnesses to test the veracity of their evidence. The Druidic tiara, or anguinum, its front embossed with a number of points to represent the sun's rays, indicated that the priest was a personification of the rising sun. On the front of his belt the Arch-Druid wore the liath meisicith--a magic brooch, or buckle in the center of which was a large white stone. To this was attributed the power of drawing the fire of the gods down from heaven at the priest's command This specially cut stone was a burning glass, by which the sun's rays were concentrated to light the altar fires. The Druids also had other symbolic implements, such as the peculiarly shaped golden sickle with which they cut the mistletoe from the oak, and the cornan, or scepter, in the form of a crescent, symbolic of the sixth day of the increasing moon and also of the Ark of Noah. An early initiate of the Druidic Mysteries related that admission to their midnight ceremony was gained by means of a glass boat, called Cwrwg Gwydrin. This boat symbolized the moon, which, floating upon the waters of eternity, preserved the seeds of living creatures within its boatlike crescent.
integrity from the most learned members of the higher Druidic degrees.
According to James Gardner, there were usually two Arch-Druids in Britain, one residing on the Isle of Anglesea and the other on the Isle of Man. Presumably there were others in Gaul. These dignitaries generally carried golden scepters and were crowned with wreaths of oak leaves, symbolic of their authority. The younger members of the Druidic Order were clean-shaven and modestly dressed, but the more aged had long gray beards and wore magnificent golden ornaments. The educational system of the Druids in Britain was superior to that of their colleagues on the Continent, and consequently many of the Gallic youths were sent to the Druidic colleges in Britain for their philosophical instruction and training.
Eliphas Levi states that the Druids lived in strict abstinence, studied the natural sciences, preserved the deepest secrecy, and admitted new members only after long probationary periods. Many of the priests of the order lived in buildings not unlike the monasteries of the modern world. They were associated in groups like ascetics of the Far East. Although celibacy was not demanded of them, few married. Many of the Druids retired from the world and lived as recluses in caves, in rough-stone houses, or in little shacks built in the depths of a forest. Here they prayed and medicated, emerging only to perform their religious duties.
James Freeman Clarke, in his Ten Great Religions, describes the beliefs of the Druids as follows: "The Druids believed in three worlds and in transmigration from one to the other: In a world above this, in which happiness predominated; a world below, of misery; and this present state. This transmigration was to punish and reward and also to purify the soul. In the present world, said they, Good and Evil are so exactly balanced that man has the utmost freedom and is able to choose or reject either. The Welsh Triads tell us there are three objects of metempsychosis: to collect into the soul the properties of all being, to acquire a knowledge of all things, and to get power to conquer evil. There are also, they say, three kinds of knowledge: knowledge of the nature of each thing, of its cause, and its influence. There are three things which continually grow less: darkness, falsehood, and death. There are three which constantly increase: light, life, and truth."
Like nearly all schools of the Mysteries, the teachings of the Druids were divided into two distinct sections. The simpler, a moral code, was taught to all the people, while the deeper, esoteric doctrine was given only to initiated priests. To be admitted to the order, a candidate was required to be of good family and of high moral character. No important secrets were intrusted to him until he had been tempted in many ways and his strength of character severely tried. The Druids taught the people of Britain and Gaul concerning the immortality of the soul. They believed in transmigration and apparently in reincarnation. They borrowed in one life, promising to pay back in the next. They believed in a purgatorial type of hell where they would be purged of their sins, afterward passing on to the happiness of unity with the gods. The Druids taught that all men would be saved, but that some must return to earth many times to learn the lessons of human life and to overcome the inherent evil of their own natures.
Before a candidate was intrusted with the secret doctrines of the Druids, he was bound with a vow of secrecy. These doctrines were imparted only in the depths of forests and in the darkness of caves. In these places, far from the haunts of men, the neophyte was instructed concerning the creation of the universe, the personalities of the gods, the laws of Nature, the secrets of occult medicine, the mysteries of the celestial bodies, and the rudiments of magic and sorcery. The Druids had a great number of feast days. The new and full moon and the sixth day of the moon were sacred periods. It is believed that initiations took place only at the two solstices and the two equinoxes. At dawn of the 25th day of December, the birth of the Sun God was celebrated.
The secret teachings of the Druids are said by some to be tinctured with Pythagorean philosophy. The Druids had a Madonna, or Virgin Mother, with a Child in her arms, who was sacred to their Mysteries; and their Sun God was resurrected at the time of the year corresponding to that at which modern Christians celebrate Easter.
Both the cross and the serpent were sacred to the Druids, who made the former by cutting off all the branches of an oak tree and fastening one of them to the main trunk in the form of the letter T. This oaken cross became symbolic of their superior Deity. They also worshiped the sun, moon, and stars. The moon received their special veneration. Caesar stated that Mercury was one of the chief deities of the Gauls. The Druids are believed to have worshiped Mercury under the similitude of a stone cube. They also had great veneration for the Nature spirits (fairies, gnomes, and undines), little creatures of the forests and rivers to whom many offerings were made. Describing the temples of the Druids, Charles Heckethorn, in The Secret Societies of All Ages & Countries, says:
"Their temples wherein the sacred fire was preserved were generally situate on eminences and in dense groves of oak, and assumed various forms--circular, because a circle was the emblem of the universe; oval, in allusion to the mundane egg, from which issued, according to the traditions of many nations, the universe, or, according to others, our first parents; serpentine, because a serpent was the symbol of Hu, the Druidic Osiris; cruciform, because a cross is an emblem of regeneration; or winged, to represent the motion of the Divine Spirit. * * * Their chief deities were reducible to two--a male and a female, the great father and mother--Hu and Ceridwen, distinguished by the same characteristics as belong to Osiris and Isis, Bacchus and Ceres, or any other supreme god and goddess representing the two principles of all Being."
Godfrey Higgins states that Hu, the Mighty, regarded as the first settler of Britain, came from a place which the Welsh Triads call the Summer Country, the present site of Constantinople. Albert Pike says that the Lost Word of Masonry is concealed in the name of the Druid god Hu. The meager information extant concerning the secret initiations of the Druids indicates a decided similarity between their Mystery school and the schools of Greece and Egypt. Hu, the Sun God, was murdered and, after a number of strange ordeals and mystic rituals, was restored to life.
There were three degrees of the Druidic Mysteries, but few successfully passed them all. The candidate was buried in a coffin, as symbolic of the death of the Sun God. The supreme test, however, was being sent out to sea in an open boat. While undergoing this ordeal, many lost their lives. Taliesin, an ancient scholar, who passed through the Mysteries, describes the initiation of the open boat in Faber's Pagan Idolatry. The few who passed this third degree were said to have been "born again," and were instructed in the secret and hidden truths which the Druid priests had preserved from antiquity. From these initiates were chosen many of the dignitaries of the British religious and political world. (For further details, see Faber's Pagan Idolatry, Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, and Godfrey Higgins' Celtic Druids.)

THE RITES OF MITHRAS

When the Persian Mysteries immigrated into Southern Europe, they were quickly assimilated by the Latin mind. The cult grew rapidly, especially among the Roman soldiery, and during the Roman wars of conquest the teachings were carried by the legionaries to nearly all parts of Europe. So powerful did the cult of Mithras become that at least one Roman Emperor was initiated into the order, which met in caverns under the city of Rome. Concerning the spread of this Mystery school through different parts of Europe, C. W. King, in his Gnostics and Their Remains, says:
"Mithraic bas-reliefs cut on the faces of rocks or on stone tablets still abound in the countries formerly the western provinces of the Roman Empire; many exist in Germany, still more in France, and in this island (Britain) they have often been discovered on the line of the Picts' Wall and the noted one at Bath."
Alexander Wilder, in his Philosophy and Ethics of the Zoroasters, states that Mithras is the Zend title for the sun, and he is supposed to dwell within that shining orb. Mithras has a male and a female aspect, though not himself androgynous. As Mithras, he is the ford of the sun, powerful and radiant, and most magnificent of the Yazatas (Izads, or Genii, of the sun). As Mithra, this deity represents the feminine principle; the mundane universe is recognized as her symbol. She represents Nature as receptive and terrestrial, and as fruitful only when bathed in the glory of the solar orb. The Mithraic cult is a simplification of the more elaborate teachings of Zarathustra (Zoroaster), the Persian fire magician.
​
THE GROUND PLAN OF STONEHENGE.
From Maurice's Indian Antiquities.
The Druid temples of places of religious worship were not patterned after those of other nations. Most of their ceremonies were performed at night, either in thick groves of oak trees or around open-air altars built of great uncut stones. How these masses of rock were moved ahs not been satisfactorily explained. The most famous of their altars, a great stone ring of rocks, is Stonehenge, in Southwestern England. This structure, laid out on an astronomical basis, still stands, a wonder of antiquity.
According to the Persians, there coexisted in eternity two principles. The first of these, Ahura-Mazda, or Ormuzd, was the Spirit of Good. From Ormuzd came forth a number of hierarchies of good and beautiful spirits (angels and archangels). The second of these eternally existing principles was called Ahriman. He was also a pure and beautiful spirit, but he later rebelled against Ormuzd, being jealous of his power. This did not occur, however, until after Ormuzd had created light, for previously Ahriman had not been conscious of the existence of Ormuzd. Because of his jealousy and rebellion, Ahriman became the Spirit of Evil. From himself he individualized a host of destructive creatures to injure Ormuzd.
When Ormuzd created the earth, Ahriman entered into its grosser elements. Whenever Ormuzd did a good deed, Ahriman placed the principle of evil within it. At last when Ormuzd created the human race, Ahriman became incarnate in the lower nature of man so that in each personality the Spirit of Good and the Spirit of Evil struggle for control. For 3,000 years Ormuzd ruled the celestial worlds with light and goodness. Then he created man. For another 3,000 years he ruled man with wisdom, and integrity. Then the power of Ahriman began, and the struggle for the soul of man continues through the next period of 3,000 years. During the fourth period of 3,000 years, the power of Ahriman will be destroyed. Good will return to the world again, evil and death will be vanquished, and at last the Spirit of Evil will bow humbly before the throne of Ormuzd. While Ormuzd and Ahriman are struggling for control of the human soul and for supremacy in Nature, Mithras, God of Intelligence, stands as mediator between the two. Many authors have noted the similarity between mercury and Mithras. As the chemical mercury acts as a solvent (according to alchemists), so Mithras seeks to harmonize the two celestial opposites.
There are many points of resemblance between Christianity and the cult of Mithras. One of the reasons for this probably is that the Persian mystics invaded Italy during the first century after Christ and the early history of both cults was closely interwoven. The Encyclopædia Britannica makes the following statement concerning the Mithraic and Christian Mysteries:
"The fraternal and democratic spirit of the first communities, and their humble origin; the identification of the object of adoration with light and the sun; the legends of the shepherds with their gifts and adoration, the flood, and the ark; the representation in art of the fiery chariot, the drawing of water from the rock; the use of bell and candle, holy water and the communion; the sanctification of Sunday and of the 25th of December; the insistence on moral conduct, the emphasis placed on abstinence and self-control; the doctrine of heaven and hell, of primitive revelation, of the mediation of the Logos emanating from the divine, the atoning sacrifice, the constant warfare between good and evil and the final triumph of the former, the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, the resurrection of the flesh and the fiery destruction of the universe--[these] are some of the resemblances which, whether real or only apparent, enabled Mithraism to prolong its resistance to Christianity,"
The rites of Mithras were performed in caves. Porphyry, in his Cave of the Nymphs, states that Zarathustra (Zoroaster) was the first to consecrate a cave to the worship of God, because a cavern was symbolic of the earth, or the lower world of darkness. John P. Lundy, in his Monumental Christianity, describes the cave of Mithras as follows:
"But this cave was adorned with the signs of the zodiac, Cancer and Capricorn. The summer and winter solstices were chiefly conspicuous, as the gates of souls descending into this life, or passing out of it in their ascent to the Gods; Cancer being the gate of descent, and Capricorn of ascent. These are the two avenues of the immortals passing up and down from earth to heaven, and from heaven to earth."
The so-called chair of St. Peter, in Rome, was believed to have been used in one of the pagan Mysteries, possibly that of Mithras, in whose subterranean grottoes the votaries of the Christian Mysteries met in the early days of their faith. In Anacalypsis, Godfrey Higgins writes that in 1662, while cleaning this sacred chair of Bar-Jonas, the Twelve Labors of Hercules were discovered upon it, and that later the French discovered upon the same chair the Mohammedan confession of faith, written in Arabic.
Initiation into the rites of Mithras, like initiation into many other ancient schools of philosophy, apparently consisted of three important degrees. Preparation for these degrees consisted of self-purification, the building up of the intellectual powers, and the control of the animal nature. In the first degree the candidate was given a crown upon the point of a sword and instructed in the mysteries of Mithras' hidden power. Probably he was taught that the golden crown represented his own spiritual nature, which must be objectified and unfolded before he could truly glorify Mithras; for Mithras was his own soul, standing as mediator between Ormuzd, his spirit, and Ahriman, his animal nature. In the second degree he was given the armor of intelligence and purity and sent into the darkness of subterranean pits to fight the beasts of lust, passion, and degeneracy. In the third degree he was given a cape, upon which were drawn or woven the signs of the zodiac and other astronomical symbols. After his initiations were over, he was hailed as one who had risen from the dead, was instructed in the secret teachings of the Persian mystics, and became a full-fledged member of the order. Candidates who successfully passed the Mithraic initiations were called Lions and were marked upon their foreheads with the Egyptian cross. Mithras himself is often pictured with the head of a lion and two pairs of wings. Throughout the entire ritual were repeated references to the birth of Mithras as the Sun God, his sacrifice for man, his death that men might have eternal life, and lastly, his resurrection and the saving of all humanity by his intercession before the throne of Ormuzd. (See Heckethorn.)
While the cult of Mithras did not reach the philosophic heights attained by Zarathustra, its effect upon the civilization of the Western world was far-reaching, for at one time nearly all Europe was converted to its doctrines. Rome, in her intercourse with other nations, inoculated them with her religious principles; and many later institutions have exhibited Mithraic culture. The reference to the "Lion" and the "Grip of the Lion's Paw" in the Master Mason's degree have a strong Mithraic tinge and may easily have originated from this cult. A ladder of seven rungs appears in the Mithraic initiation. Faber is of the opinion that this ladder was originally a pyramid of seven steps. It is possible that the Masonic ladder with seven rungs had its origin in this Mithraic symbol. Women were never permitted to enter the Mithraic Order, but children of the male sex were initiates long before they reached maturity. The refusal to permit women to join the Masonic Order may be based on the esoteric reason given in the secret instructions of the Mithraics. This cult is another excellent example of those secret societies whose legends are largely symbolic representations of the sun and his journey through the houses of the heavens. Mithras, rising from a stone, is merely the sun rising over the horizon, or, as the ancients supposed, out of the horizon, at the vernal equinox.
John O'Neill disputes the theory that Mithras was intended as a solar deity. In The Night of the Gods he writes: "The Avestan Mithra, the yazata of light, has '10,000 eyes, high, with full knowledge (perethuvaedayana), strong, sleepless and ever awake (jaghaurvaunghem).'The supreme god Ahura Mazda also has one Eye, or else it is said that 'with his eyes, the sun, moon and stars, he sees everything.' The theory that Mithra was originally a title of the supreme heavens-god--putting the sun out of court--is the only one that answers all requirements. It will be evident that here we have origins in abundance for the Freemason's Eye and 'its nunquam dormio.'" The reader must nor confuse the Persian Mithra with the Vedic Mitra. According to Alexander Wilder, "The Mithraic rites superseded the Mysteries of Bacchus, and became the foundation of the Gnostic system, which for many centuries prevailed in Asia, Egypt, and even the remote West."
​
MITHRAS SLAYING THE BULL.
​
From Lundy's Monumental Christianity.
​
The most famous sculpturings and reliefs of this prototokos show Mithras kneeling upon the recumbent form of a great bull, into whose throat he is driving a sword. The slaying of the bull signifies that the rays of the sun, symbolized by the sword, release at the vernal equinox the vital essences of the earth--the blood of the bull--which, pouring from the wound made by the Sun God, fertilize the seeds of living things. Dogs were held sacred to the cult of Mithras, being symbolic of sincerity and trustworthiness. The Mithraics used the serpent a an emblem of Ahriman, the Spirit of Evil, and water rats were held sacred to him. The bull is esoterically the Constellation of Taurus; the serpent, its opposite in the zodiac, Scorpio; the sun, Mithras, entering into the side of the bull, slays the celestial creature and nourishes the universe with its blood.
​
THE BIRTH OF MITHRAS.
​
​
From Montfaucon's Antiquities
​
Mithras was born out of a rock, which, breaking open, permitted him to emerge. This occurred in the darkness of a subterranean chamber. The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem confirms the theory that Jesus was born in a grotto, or cave. According to Dupuis, Mithras was put to death by crucifixion and rose again on the third day.
submitted by CuteBananaMuffin to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Xeno's ノート- 10 Drift Nations Peppered Across The Globe In 2045

A batch of information regarding Drift Nations in the Time of the Red, to be used as hook or locations in your games if you feel so inclined. The second part is already being worked on.

10 Drift Nations Peppered Across The Globe In 2045

The Centino Flotilla (Nomad Family) Area of operations: Northern and Southern Pacific Numbers and leadership: 40,000+ members, ~8,000 vessels (of various size), led by Allegria Chung
The Centino Flotilla is one of the few good things finding their roots in the Fourth Corporate War, some would say. After only months of bitter fighting between Arasaka and Militech, everyone had but forgotten the two corporations, OTEC and CINO, responsible for kicking-off the conflict. Equally, no one was surprised to hear that the two companies ended up bleeding each other to death during the Sea War, mostly in the Pacific.
As with many others, the destruction of Arasaka's headquarters in Night City by a nuclear detonation came as a wake up call. But the situation was already past the return point for both corporations and, as the commercial entities teetered over the edge, their maritime forces came to an uneasy stand-off in the Pacific. It took all the diplomatic skills of one of CINO's captain, Grant Chung, to reach over the divide and bring the two parties together. Bound by years of mutual bloodletting and tragedies, they decided to merge forces and survive together against all odds.
After pooling their last resources together, the two parties spent the next year building their flotilla and roaming the Pacific Ocean. Determined to never be a tool of corporate greed ever again, they brought their skills to help rebuilding many of the Pacific Island nations, as well as other Drift Nations such as AquaDelphi or the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Now led by Grant's daughter, Allegria, the flotilla is a force to be reckoned with, its vessels flying the teal wave emblem being seen all over the Pacific. Specialized in reconstruction of seashore communities and shepherding Ghost Fleets toward places where they could be recycled, they are one of the new binding links of the Pacific ocean nations.
AquaDelphi (Fallen Coporate Dream) Location: South-West of Hawaii Estimated population and leadership: 30,000+, organized in guilds with a Central Council of 5
AquaDelphi's project came out during the corporate golden years, sprouting off OTEC's board of director's collective hubris. Not unlike Night City, AquaDelphi was designed to serve as the new standard by which future cities would be built. And no one ever blamed the OTEC heads for lack of ambition.
Mobilizing all the resources from their conglomerate, the maritime corporation set their view on a territory close to Hawaii. Buying the ownership from the fallen US federal government was a piece of cake at the time and construction began quickly. Centered around the company headquarters, the city was to hold the largest library humankind ever put together, a massive seaport complete with dry docks, and utopian housing for the corporate families among other pharaoh-like projects. The whole place was powered by harnessing geothermal energy and run by the in-house AI, Pythia.
Unfortunately, as Fate is wont to, AquaDelphi was still under construction when the Fourth Corporate War came knocking. The green spaces of the housing district and the ancient white stones of the library were the first to go when the bombings started, then it was the turn of OTEC headquarters. As long as the monstrous steel towers stood upright, most of the population tried to keep the dream alive despite Pythia's more and more frequent erratic outbursts; but it was only delaying the inevitable exodus toward Hawaii.
Nowadays, AquaDelphi is slowly being rebuilt, thanks mostly to her massive sea port becoming one of the major places for ship breaking. Refugees gradually return to a place the Kress administration would not touch with a ten foot pole and dream of renaissance, but many are wary of the corporate nightmares lying in wait, among which Pythia...
New R'lyeh (Reckoners Cthuluny) Location: South Pacific Estimated Population and Leadership: 6,000+ under the leadership of the Dunwich Congregation
A decade ago, nobody had heard of the Dunwich Congregation. Only specialist were aware of this reckoner cult, led by austere people in outmoded black suits. Anyone would have told you that their idea of a cosmic entity with far too many tentacles and consonants in its name was never going to appeal to the masses. But the community endured, centered around their faith in Lovecraft's writings.
The news then dropped one day, six years ago: the congregation had purchased a rotten weather outpost in the empty corner of Southern Pacific. Reports of a growing shanty town came back, brought by passing ships and still no one expected them to survive once again. But they did, sending more missionaries across the world, armed with the Cthulu Mythologies; and their numbers grow steadily if slowly. Their declared goal in establishing New R'lyeh is to find old R'lyeh, a sunken city supposedly holding either a sleeping Cthulu or a way to connect with them. No one will speak openly about life in New R'lyeh but rumors of cultural segregation, weird rites and human sacrifices are legion. Whatever the truth, they are there to stay and never relent.
Their deep sea explorations and general presence are not to the taste of the European Space Agency (ESA), whose Deepdown outposts have been established there for decades in order to retrieve low-orbit material brought back to Earth in the area. The assaults led by ESA's underwater elite troops, the Nemos, stay fruitless as the cultists proved to hard to remove from the area. With number swelling steadily every year, New R'lyeh keeps growing weirder and is not going anywhere.
Cape Horn Wreckers (Scavvers Union) Location: Cape Horn area Numbers and Leadership: Up to 500 members. Leadership unknown.
Many places still struggle with the aftermath of the last Corporate War. Take Cape Horn, for example. The southernmost end of South America was for centuries the standard against which sailors measured their abilities and, more recently, a strategical passage to control for commercial and military purposes. Needless to say the place saw bitter fighting during the Sea War.
Which is why everybody started clapping when Argentinians and Chileans publicly decided to put their differences aside and find ways to clear up Cape Horn for maritime shipping once peace returned. Weary of corporate task forces, they decided to hire a multitude of small operators with designated areas to work on, in exchange for advantageous prices buying back salvaged material, as well as a share of any reclaimed equipment. Little did they know this would help turn their myriad of contractors in the now infamous Cape Horn Wreckers.
After only a couple of years, the small contractor crews started to work as a cooperative, granting them better negotiating power when selling back salvaged materials; while limited oversight allowed them to keep for themselves smaller ships and various pieces of armament at they saw fit. When the shipwrecks became too scarce and maritime shipping sputtered anew, the Wreckers naturally started using scramblers to lure passing vessels aground and pillage them.
By the time Chile and Argentina decided to intervene, it was too late. The Wreckers could stand on their own against national armies and navies. The international community obligingly looked aside for years but recent incursions in the Drake Passage forced foreign powers to start face the problem more directly. As a start, a series of bounties were set for anyone able to help identify and capture the Wreckers' leaders ...
North Atlantic Trade Hub (High Seas Trade Post) Location: Midway between the Azores and Ireland Population and leadership: 127,520 under joint Corporate-European Council oversight.
It took decades in the making for this trade platform to come out of the waves two years ago in the middle of Northern Atlantic. Decades of negotiations between Kaerms, the European maritime shipping titan, and European Council representatives during which American and Asian competitors took the lead. The North Atlantic Trade Hub is supposed to the European answer to this situation. Fearing Europe loss of speed in the maritime shipping and shipbuilding areas, N.A.T.H (as most familiarly call it) was conceived with the dual purpose in mind.
NATH is in reality an atoll of starfish-shaped platforms working in close relationship. On one side you will find the state of the art Noatun shipyards, pumping out small or medium trade vessels at an increasing rhythm and with a focus set on affordability and durability, the "sea mules" of the reborn sea trade. Paired with this, you will find a constellation of piers and decentralized trading centers, hosting a wide variety of small corporation and independent traders.
To keep their edge sharp, the European Union agreed to let the platform become a de facto city state with a policy of "high wages - low taxes" for five years granted to any worker, engineer or researcher choosing to migrate there; under the condition that they move to Europe and naturalize at the end of their contract.
As for now, the NATH managed its primary objective of becoming Europe's gateway for Northern Atlantic trade. The sea mules sell decently enough but are yet to threaten the Asian shipyards, the real mastodons of the industry. In the meantime, slack standards benefited many of the grey economy operators: if you need European gear, for cheap, then head on over before time's up and the forces of regulations start to crack down!
The Nansen Nation (Stateless Society) Area of Operations: Mediterranean Sea Estimated numbers and Leadership: ~200,000 citizens; 60,000+ vessels; led by the council of 500
Saying the Mediterranean sea has a millennia-long history of serving as the interface for human commerce and migrations comes to no surprise for anyone. If commerce was said to tighten the bonds across the sea, migrations became an increasingly divisive subject for trans-Mediterranean summits during the 20th century. Many ventured off the Mediterranean shore and tried to immigrate to Europe, often risking their lives in the process; while "Fortress Europe" focused inwardly on its own success and only offered token help to the migrants if they returned home.
The situation became a nightmare during the Middle-East meltdown of the late 90's. Hundreds of thousands of humans ended up stranded at sea, roaming the Mediterranean as ghosts, stuck between war-torn countries on one side and a paradise out of reach on the other. And Europe kept letting only a few in, openly picking and competing over whichever individuals they thought could benefit their countries the most.
By the time African states managed to open their door more widely and benefit from the influx of population, many refugees then refused to return to land. Living for many years at seas, they had learned to make a living off of the waters and to navigate the inland sea like no other nation; turning them into peerless transporters and smugglers with a central role in the Mediterranean.
After electing a council of 500 hundred captains, the multi-cultural community chose their name from the Nansen passport delivered to stateless individuals a century before that. Their counters can be found in any major port of the inland sea, under the purple Phoenician letter N, offering their services to anyone looking to move someone or something discreetly over the sea. Europeans pay double, it goes without saying.
Safaniya-Zakum (Oil Extraction Complex) Location: Persian Gulf Estimated Population and Leadership: 80,000+ inhabitants and workers led by local royals
"A technological prowess" is what the Safaniya-Zakum complex is often described as. Both proponents and opponents of the project do tip their hat to its execution. Using a blend of time-proven and cutting edge technologies, a network of oil rigs, fishing piers, gas ducts and housing blocks is now stretching out above the waves of the Persian Gulf, all the way from Kuwait to the Hormuz Strait.
Proponents of the Saf-Za complex call it "the phoenix chant of a reborn Middle-East". Many put forward the accent set on sustainability and multi-cultural society, overcoming the ancient divisions. Not only the complex's only operator, a state-run company, manages to extract oil and gas from the sea bed again, but the ancient traditions of fishing and pearl culture are brought back. Considering the desolated lands of Iran and United Arab Emirates on both coasts, it is hard not to perceive the Saf-Za network as a cry of defiance against defeatism and a sense of doom.
Opponents call it "the swan song of a dying industry", preferring to point at the predominance of CHOOH² and deploring the refusal to let go of antiquated technologies. Others underline the complex's authoritarian regime and omnipresent police. Any visitors hoping to set a foot in will have to provide a full genetic profile and suffice to say that anyone even remotely affiliated to PetroChem or SovOil will never have a chance to peek inside.
With the extremely high level of difficulty regarding the obtaining of any information from inside the complex, experts are left wondering if the Safaniya-Zakum structure will hold long enough between intern fracture lines and outside pressure; long enough to recreate the major center of trade between India and the Eastern coast of Africa the region once was.
Deep Level Recovery HQ (Artificial Corporate Island) Location: Bay of Bengal Estimated Population and Leadership: ~7,000 employees led by D.L.R CEO and Face Kanchan Bonse
When the first Deepdown bubbles experimentation appeared decades ago, nobody expected any one else than military actors or some of the largest mega-corporations of the time to take the industry's lead toward expansion into civilian markets. But during the late 2020's, such actors had their compass set on rebuilding their power and returning to pre-war balance. Which suited someone who had been swimming under the radar for a bit.
Kanchan Bonse grew up following her corporate executive mother along a wide variety of postings. She emerged from her childhood with two passions: wreck diving and corporate power play. In the following years, she worked along the Indian coastlines on maritime salvage projects or post-disaster rescue operations. During those formative years, she lost nothing of her passions but gained a thick address book filled with talented if disgruntled, under-payed workers and engineers. Deep Level Recovery had all the ingredients to come to existence.
After building the core of her future corporation using her personal fortune; Bonse focused on developing proprietary designs for underwater habitats and workshops, allowing her technicians too work longer underwater. Spending many years experimenting and enhancing their techniques during humanitarian crises in South-East Asia, DLR took no side during the Fourth Corporate War but only gained power in the aftermath by landing many lucrative contracts all over the world.
Decades later, their glass bubble headquarters sit on waters granted by the Indian government as a thankful gesture. Visitors can admire there both the company's humanitarian projects and Deepdown habitat designs destined to the richest fringe of the planet. It is said that Kanchan Bonse only dives for pleasure these days but seems to be keeping tabs on elite divers across the world.
Far Yue City (Modular Floating City State) Location: South China Sea Estimated population and Leadership: 750,000 to 1,000,000 with a Central Representative Council
The fate of Hong Kong is one of the many tragedies of our times. After years of inner fighting and outside influence, the vibrant city was trying to recover when the Fourth Corporate War hit the world. A tragedy that climaxed with a biochemical attack for Hong Kong, closing that chapter on an abrupt end and leaving the rest of the wold with nothing but the Ghost World for memories. But that was without taking in account those who had to run prior to the events...
Since 2027 it has been noted that many members of the diaspora converged towards the Spratly islands to reunite with refugees from the Fragrant Harbour. Many former cargo vessels were bought as well as the maximum amount of TEU's they could get their hands on. In a matter of years a medium size fleet assembled with its inhabitants carrying their whole lives and families aboard, amidst a tangle of TEU's whose assembly became reminiscent of Kowloon's Walled City.
Early on, the ensemble stuck together giving life to a vivid culture of community and ingenuity. Workshops found new ways of extracting the most out of their minimal space and reduced resources. Personal networks connected and shared outside connections. The place became known as Far Yue City. By that time it was already able to travel as a group, approaching the coast of neighbouring countries, engaging in trade and knowledge sharing in exchange for protection.
Nowadays Far Yue city is able to criss-cross the whole South China sea as a whole, but more often fragmented; bringing city-sized dense assemblages of shops, schools, apartments, workshops and other gambling halls to various neighboring countries despite some local grumblings. For there is no better place in the region to obtain rare information, enjoy Dim Sum, place a bet, get a light-tattoo or learn hacking techniques than one of those floating districts sporting the white orchid emblem.
Ivory Sails (Free Navy) Area of operation: Worldwide Estimated numbers and Leadership: ~20,000 troops, ~2,000 boats, led by Ian Sharpgrove
The history of the Ivory sails is a tale of danger, daring actions and glory. Or it is a litany of war crimes, greed and ruthlessness. It usually depends on which side of the conflict you were. The Ivory Sails came to the world during the harsh days of the Sea War. As Militech and Arasaka were trading blows on land, sea, in the air, and in the cyberspace; their allies and subsidiaries destroyed each other; creating opportunities for professional outfits. Some of them at sea.
In came Ian Sharpgrove, raising out of obscurity at the tail end of the conflict and bringing with him a highly-specialized crew tailored for special operations. There was no raid the Sharpgrove Unit would fear to undertake, no desperate rearguard action they would not fight, no mission dangerous enough for them. Eventually managing the dubious feat of selling their services to most of the actors on both sides of the conflict, Sharpgrove and his troops made a name for themselves and soon enough everyone was ready to pay them so they would not fight for the other side.
This "sense of realpolitik winds", as he puts it himself, was what permitted now admiral Sharpgrove and his faithful troops to emerge rich and powerful out of the conflict. But their reputation was forever stained with infamy. In a transparent laundering effort, the group was re-named Ivory Sails and oriented themselves toward "peacekeeping" and "police actions", with a sprinkling of highly-publicized humanitarian stunts to seduce the medias.
Nowadays the Ivory Sails can be found anywhere across the globe training coastguard navies, securing areas for corporate clients, escorting refugee convoys and other such actions. Each time extracting a true ransom in exchange for their presence. But Sharpgrove knows the new golden age of privateers is reaching its end and takes every opportunity to line his pockets, mercilessly resorting to piracy if needed, before someone finally "retires" him once and for all.
submitted by ZhtWu to cyberpunkred [link] [comments]

Kaiserreich Beta 0.15.1 is out!

Here's the usual post-release hotfix we're sure some of you have been waiting on! We've straightened a number of things out, but we've also expanded the Ottoman "Fevzi" route, so you're getting a little content bonus too. Unfortunately, as we've noted before, this hotfix \will* break saves. As always, you can download previous versions of the mod manually from our mediafire if you desperately need to complete your game. Otherwise, sit down and enjoy!*
Changes
Notable Additions
Reworked/Expanded Focus Trees
New Events
New Decisions
GFX
Mapping
Balance
Miscellaneous
Fixes
Notable Fixes
Other Fixes
We hope you enjoy playing Kaiserreich as much as we did making it!
- The KR4 Team: Alpinia, Arvidus, Augenis, Blackfalcon501, DSFDarker, Carmain, Dr. Njitram, Drozdovite, Eragaxshim, Flamefang, Fort, JazzyHugh, Jeankedezeehond, Jonjon428, Jonny BL, Krco, Liegnitz, Maltesefalcon, Matoro, Nijato, NukeGaming, OperationsManagementDecisions, PPsyrius, Pietrus, Rei VL, Rylock, SPQR, Starguard, Telcontar101, The Alpha Dog, The Irredentista, Thomahawk2k, Vidyaország, WordZero, Yard1, Zankoas and Zimbabwe Salt Co.
submitted by Alpinia_KR to Kaiserreich [link] [comments]

Rewatch Impressions

Rewatched Veep recently for what I think was the third time? Either way, it left me with some thoughts
- Sue was a lot less featured than I thought. Most episodes had her with minor dialogue in a few scenes only, and there were only a handful that had her with a largish part in the plot (the hostage episode, and the garbage one too), whereas most characters had their day in the limelight, at minimum. Of course some characters will always be minor, but she probably has less total screentime than Furlong. Glad she was back for the finale.
- Testimony was interesting because of the outside view of all of this, and shows the public perception of all the characters. Ben in particular presented as especially charismatic, which was quite something.
- I don't know if this was an Easter egg or not, but Montez goofed up the oath - its '...office of president...' but she said '...the office of the president...', which I thought was odd that it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but I'm willing to be it was difficult to put into the 5-minutes of tightly packed plot conclusion
- I found it odd that Tom James asked to be Treasury Secretary when he did, on election night, whereas it would've made sense to ask Selena after she wins (as she'd be at her happiest), as opposed to when the most powerful woman in the world is at her most tense
- I'm also surprised there wasn't a large deal made over the Electoral College itself, given literally one faithless elector could've been bribed to swap votes and decide the presidency, whereas it wasn't mentioned at all at all.
- Selena's actual political acumen is rarely mentioned, and we only get glipses of it (her postal commission reducing waste in the postal service, her 'successful' raid on the wedding that killed the target). As TV Tropes puts it, its more of an informed ability than anything directly displayed, which unfortunately contributes to it seeming like a 'comedy of errors' at times than an incisive look into the political backrooms. Each of her major attempts are defeated - both Clean Jobs and the (Mommy) Meyer Bill effectively leave her with no major legacy in her first four years in the West Wing.
- One of her issues is having no office in the West Wing (something we're told in a flashback around S6 or S7, I believe?), though Seasons 2 and 3 have her team operating out of an (albeit smaller) office in the West Wing from time to time, which is sort of confusing.
- Given the timeline of politics puts Selena as entering politics in the mid-1990s, she was probably elected to Congress first around the Year of the Woman in 1992. This isn't meant to sound crude or dismissive, but her description of her experience of sexism in politics (such as in the S7 debate) would likely be something more associated with a career in politics in the 70s or 80s. Though not to dismiss a lived experience or anything.
- The progression of women in politics is pretty interesting to comprehend - given this version of 2020s America has had two (three?) female presidents and a female vice president, and every election since 2012 has had a woman on the ticket. Even their 2020 election had two women at the top of the ticket. This has progressed to the point that having a two-woman ticket isn't entirely unthinkable, which is a pretty remarkable step up.
- I live in a country that is not the USA, so our scandals are more of the 'politician leaked a document' or 'minister fell asleep in parliament' type, as opposed to the far, far larger threats current America has, so it may have aged better for my own viewing than for other people's viewing.
- Catherine is at her most interesting when its shown that she's far more like her mother than we'd be led to believe; this is at its best in the second last episode when her and Majorie decide to get married in Europe after all, which sort of rerails her character a bit. She's really easy to feel sorry for, and usually hits a lot of those moments where you just want Selena to do the right thing for once (she doesn't).
- It's rather hilarious seeing that Selena's friends are all as stuck-up as she is; insulting her political skills to her face, not inviting her to a wedding, etc. Its not a stretch to imagine all of them were merely friends because the pressures of Law School brought them together, and find it difficult to maintain a friendship outside of that.
- The show, in my opinion, moves into the flow of 'Election TV' far to quickly, and moves away from an interesting premise too early in its run, to something that is often seen in other shows (Scandal, House of Cards, etc). Not that it isn't still top-tier television, but its just a bit off, looking back in retrospect.
- Helsinki and London visits are rather interesting episodes, and show off the common Vice Presidential duty of foreign visits and funerals that the president doesn't want to attend. (Also, though I could be wrong on the specifics, the USA is attempting to negotiate a trade agreement with Finland, where as an EU member state, the USA would only be able to reach an agreement with the EU as a whole, not individual member states. Plot hole?)
- Could the 'squeaks' from her shoes in the inaugural address even be audible to the general public? They were no louder than her voice, so surely would be less detectable from far away from the microphone. Also, would the technician guys not have a lick of sense and at least mute the microphones until she actually got to the podium?
- I feel like using the party colors was a bit of an unnecessary giveaway, I would've liked to see the election map lit up with orange and cyan or something interesting. Also, I do believe they mention the GOP at one point, just as an aside. My own view on the parties, which explains things like Jonah's base and Montez wanting to ban for-profit prisons is that politics are akin to Ireland's, where one party (Selena's) is a liberal party with a large conservative/traditionalist wing, and the other is a party of the neoliberal center. This would also explain the scope of the president to be able to woo members of the opposing political party in the House vote, which otherwise is a bit immersion-breaking.
- I understand this point is a bit of looking back and scoffing, but how and why was the economy so dramatically upset because of uncertainty in the race? Fundamentally both parties are different flavors of the same soup, so I wouldn't expect the markets to be as spooked as they were, especially given that its weathered greater storms (like the present). It's probably nowhere near comparable to their given analogue of the 2008 crash, which was caused by fundamental issues with lending practices, not 'uncertainty'.
- The scene with Congresswoman Nickerson is one of the best takedowns in television, and I'm glad they channeled that energy into the scene in the finale with Tom's Amy.
- I watched the cut scenes of Catherine's Documentary on the YouTube, and I sorta wish they made a long-form version of that episode, as its simply brilliant, and an interesting shift away from their usual format.
- I forgot how funny the 'Hey Grimace' line is from Furlong.
- Freeing Tibet is one of the major actual successes which she engages in (and which almost justifies her typical bad behavior to Catherine). However, Montez getting the Peace Prize is a bit mad given she had no involvement (I understand, its a plot point), but she had no part in signing the actual agreement. After Selena leaves office, there's no benefit to her from keeping it secret anymore, especially when such a major legacy achievement is on the line; given that one (Tibet) significantly outweighs the other (leaking her tweet coverup), there's no real reason why she'd keep it a secret while remaining in-office either, or go to such extremes in her post-presidency either. I understand a throwaway line from Jane McCabe on how it was very big of her to keep quiet at such a critical juncture, I still can't see any reason she kept it hidden so long.
- Another plot question - if Mina was in a sexual relationship with a candidate in the Georgian election, how was she allowed to not only be a supervisor, but a direct overseer from the UN? Do they not have self-declaration forms for this kinda thing?
- I bet Montez wishes she appointed Selena to the Supreme Court after all.
- Shawnee Tanz is a fantastic character, and represents an interesting Ellen Wilson-style figure of when the more powerful half of a political couple isn't the politician, an archetype totally absent from the show before S6.
- Season 7 is noticably rushed, which is a shame, but is understandable given the health problems JLD had. Plot elements are dropped, like Amy's abortion, which could've been rather interesting if properly fleshed out (wonder are there any extended fan-written interpretations out there?). Others, like Richard's political rise, are solid plotlines, but just happen far too rapidly. Otherwise its a pretty interesting season, even if it does tread a lot of the same ground that Seasons 3 and 4 do. Most of Selena's attitudes are very scorched earth, which doubtless made it more of a tense campaign than is depicted; with election rigging to Selena even using a slogan that is a direct attack on a fellow candidate.
- The finale also poses the question of Selena being too proud to ask Kemi to be her running mate (assuming Kemi would go for it; she was pretty close to Selena in delegate totals), and only considering her immediately before Kemi goes nuclear on CNN. This is aided by the fact two-female tickets are a bit more feasible in this America, of course.
- After Selena and Jeff Kane successfully browbeat Jonah into accepting the VP position, it does raise the question as to why they didn't just try browbeat him into accepting AgSec or something minor; he doesn't have Shawnee Tanz to back him up anymore, though I do wish she had stuck around.
- I understand people make criticisms of Veep S7 looking too much like a direct Trump parallel, though I think it's because we've largely forgotten the parallels to the Obama administration that early seasons have - from questioning Chung's citizenship, to the Michelle Obama-Selena link of being a powerful and capable woman stuck with dealing with obesity, not a major issue. My only issue would be Amy physically resembles Kellyanne Conway too much, but though I suspect once the Trump administration fades into obscurity, it'll end up being seeming less of a direct parody.
- I wish someone did a 'fashion analysis' of Veep, as I've seen some good ones of Mean Girls and the like, so that would be entertaining to watch.
- Selena's personality evolves throughout the series, going from 'abrasive and jilted, yet well-meaning public servant' to 'someone desperate for a last grasp at power'. In that, the ending scene of S6 works incredibly well as a 'the gang is back for one last blast' type scene. The ending part of the convention scene works incredibly well to that regard, where she individually sells out each and every ideal and person that's important to her. What really gets me, is that its nothing she hasn't done before either, its just a really condensed and focused impact of what's happened throughout her career; she defamed Tom James with the assault allegation in the same way she fueled the Chung torture rumor; she sells out her daughter in the way that she's, well, done it all of Catherine's life; minor details like drilling rights on federal lands are an easy mirror of past sell-outs like support for a border wall; though of course Gary takes the absolute cake, and its a fantastic finale for that reason.
- I do question how on earth she actually banned same-sex marriage - if both parties are at least moderated somewhat, there's no political use in banning same-sex marriage; even Buddy Calhoun doesn't represent a large enough slice of the pie that she can't avoid appeasing them. I suppose its one way of cementing her repulsion of Catherine, but it seemed sorta superfluous. Also, the fact it may well take a constitutional amendment, too?
- While obviously the general idea of the Oval Office scene was to hammer home how lonely it is at the top, she could well 'resurrect' at least part of her team if she had the willpower - Amy would likely jump at the chance to be free of Jonah, and Dan could well be bought/bribed back with some form of access to power or money. Not to mention how Jonah and Richard are still part of the cabinet, and Sue is unfixingly changed. Sure, she's lonely, but its not an immovable situation.
Anyway, this was far longer than I intended. 9/10
submitted by Puerto-nic0 to Veep [link] [comments]

general election odds ireland video

All-Ireland Football Final ... We have updating Irish general election betting after the exit poll and it looks like FG will do a lot better than betting had suggested. Ireland could be heading back to the polls next year if the latest betting is anything to go by as 2021 is being backed as the most likely year to host the next general election. Speculation that the coalition is destined to collapse in the next year has been on an upward trend this month as BoyleSports cut the odds in half of a new election being required into just 2/1 from 4/1. General Election Constituency Betting Politics betting odds, results and more from William Hill, the online bookmaker. Everything you need to bet on General Election Constituency Betting. Who will win the 2019 general election? The latest odds from bookmakers William Hill show a Conservative Majority most likely at 4/11, with a No Overall Majority at 9/4, followed by a Labour ... Latest general election odds: Who the bookies believe will be crowned the election winner THE odds on what and who the bookmakers believe will triumph at the polls today have been released and it ... Ireland votes in a general election on Saturday and, with the outcome uncertain, Cormac Dowling breaks down the key betting markets Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar is poised to lose Saturday’s election, betting odds indicate, with the party that oversaw the nation’s international bailout set to return to power. Ireland's General Election odds as Paddy Power reveals Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail set to win big. Fianna Fail are expected to be the biggest winners. ... General Election 2020: ... 2024 General Election Predictor. UK election seat calculator on a uniform swing. Enter your own percentage figures. UK general election odds for the next vote, expected in 2019. Which party will win the most seats? View all election betting markets here!

general election odds ireland top

[index] [3999] [2049] [5381] [3779] [4028] [4941] [7601] [8047] [4038] [514]

general election odds ireland

Copyright © 2024 top100.realmoneybestgame.xyz