NationStates

Painisia wrote:Are there any Venezuelans on NS, or is NS banned in Venezuela?

I doubt many Venezuelans have running water, much less internet connection.

Shanhwa wrote:

Painisia wrote:Are there any Venezuelans on NS, or is NS banned in Venezuela?

I doubt many Venezuelans have running water, much less internet connection.

Off the top of my head, I know of 2 Venezuelan NSers

Those being: Stanier (Who is running away from Venezuela) and a guy who CTE but is still active on Discord

Conserative Morality wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:
(Note: Those cowering on the floor before Emperor Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" are all the corrupt oligarchs and politicians who got rich off the People. Basil used corporal punishment - blinding, torture and expropriation of property - to root out corruption and make sure the Government ran efficiently; he also protected the rights of the People; by which I mean the Peasants, Artisans, ordinary working folk. He stabilized the Empire during a time of crisis, and his reign was something of a Golden Age; not to mention the longest of any Byzantine Emperor; from 976 AD - 1025 AD. The only other people who ever came close to this in Modern Greek History was the Military Junta of 1967 - 1974. I might add that neither the Emperor nor the Junta believed in Democracy or Liberalism, and they managed to take good care of their People - better than any Democrat has ever managed. How is this possible? Democrats, discuss!)

>> when I wake up to some low-grade autocracy apologism

Tell me more about how the junta totally didn't arbitrarily arrest, murder, and torture thousands of Greek citizens on trumped-on charges. I also enjoy the rampant nepotism, corruption, waste, and factionalism during the seven short years of the regime.

Basil II was okay by the standards of his time, but I wouldn't attribute any greatness to him.

1967-1974 Greek flag > lighter blue Greek flag

You can’t change my mind.

Nea Byzantia wrote:Why not? What wasn't great about Basil? Why is he subpar in your eyes?

He's not subpar. More par. The way I see monarchy is that monarchy essentially mandates aristocracy, but any aristocracy is inevitably opposed to the royal party; as such, his positions against the aristocracy are not particularly surprising or exceptional. If I were a Greek nationalist or a Byzie supporter I might feel better about his military exploits, but as I'm neither, they just get a shrug from me.

Broke: Porphyrogenitus

Woke: N O V U S H O M O

Shanhwa wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:>> when I wake up to some low-grade autocracy apologism

Tell me more about how the junta totally didn't arbitrarily arrest, murder, and torture thousands of Greek citizens on trumped-on charges. I also enjoy the rampant nepotism, corruption, waste, and factionalism during the seven short years of the regime.

Basil II was okay by the standards of his time, but I wouldn't attribute any greatness to him.

1967-1974 Greek flag > lighter blue Greek flag

You can’t change my mind.

You're not wrong

Then you have the flag of Northern Epirus

Hammer Britannia wrote:

Shanhwa wrote:
1967-1974 Greek flag > lighter blue Greek flag

You can’t change my mind.

You're not wrong

Then you have the flag of Northern Epirus

Ελλινεσ?

A republic is essentially a pack of wolves, one and all, seeking and eating whatever it can. Wolves, as one will remember, are scavengers and omnivores, and the predecessors of dogs. We can engage in brilliant tactics to eliminate prey much larger and stronger than ourselves, or we can eat our vomit, vomit it up, and eat it again; and then squabble over who gets to eat the biggest share of vomit. Depends on the day.

The monarch and their party are lions; the aristocracy, servals; the people, mice. The servals eat the mice, and so are despised by them; but the lion eats the servals, and so are beloved by the mice (so long as times are not hard enough, or the lion not gluttonous enough, to gorge themselves on mice instead). But what cares a lion for the mice? They share an interest in seeing the servals eaten, perhaps, but ultimately, the life of the lion depends on servals eating the mice.

Nea Byzantia wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

(Note: Those cowering on the floor before Emperor Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" are all the corrupt oligarchs and politicians who got rich off the People. Basil used corporal punishment - blinding, torture and expropriation of property - to root out corruption and make sure the Government ran efficiently; he also protected the rights of the People; by which I mean the Peasants, Artisans, ordinary working folk. He stabilized the Empire during a time of crisis, and his reign was something of a Golden Age; not to mention the longest of any Byzantine Emperor; from 976 AD - 1025 AD. The only other people who ever came close to this in Modern Greek History was the Military Junta of 1967 - 1974. I might add that neither the Emperor nor the Junta believed in Democracy or Liberalism, and they managed to take good care of their People - better than any Democrat has ever managed. How is this possible? Democrats, discuss!)

Brutality does not befit democracy.

Authoritarians, gerroff.

Minzerland II wrote:

The Galactic Liberal Democracy wrote:>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

I prefer elected oligarchs to ones by birth.
At least I have some say in picking the better ones and removing the worst.

Novus America wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

I prefer elected oligarchs to ones by birth.
At least I have some say in picking the better ones and removing the worst.

"At least I have some say in picking the better ones and removing the worst."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Basil II receives a lot of (justly deserved) admiration, but it does seem wrong that it's to the extent that his predecessor is comparatively forgotten. John I Tzimiskes laid much of the administrative foundation that Basil built upon while also managing to take the fight to the Islamic foes to the East of the Romans, reconquering Syria and coming close to even retaking Jerusalem; his untimely death prevented the Byzantines from properly securing these conquests, alas, and Basil ended up more focused in European affairs. Despite his Eastern orientation, however, John was no slouch in Europe either and annexed Bulgaria. John also, as a last great act for his Roman subjects, posthumously bequeathed his personal fortune to the poor and sick.

Totally Not OEP wrote:Basil II receives a lot of (justly deserved) admiration, but it does seem wrong that it's to the extent that his predecessor is comparatively forgotten. John I Tzimiskes laid much of the administrative foundation that Basil built upon while also managing to take the fight to the Islamic foes to the East of the Romans, reconquering Syria and coming close to even retaking Jerusalem; his untimely death prevented the Byzantines from properly securing these conquests, alas, and Basil ended up more focused in European affairs. Despite his Eastern orientation, however, John was no slouch in Europe either and annexed Bulgaria. John also, as a last great act for his Roman subjects, posthumously bequeathed his personal fortune to the poor and sick.

Everybody forgets Nikephoros II Phokas (ruled: 963 AD - 969 AD) too; "the White Death of the Saracens"; the Liberator of Crete, he also went after oligarchs and corrupt Bishops, even. He also contributed to the founding of the first Monasteries on Mount Athos; and he is regarded as a Saint by the Orthodox Church. John Tzimiskes (Nikephoros' nephew, if I'm not mistaken) and several other aristocratic conspirators snuck into the Imperial Bedchamber on the night of December 11th, 969, and stabbed the sovereign to death. Its almost certain that the coup had the cooperation of the Empress Regent Theophano, and the obsequious Parakomoimenos Basil Lekapenos.

Novus America wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

I prefer elected oligarchs to ones by birth.
At least I have some say in picking the better ones and removing the worst.

You have no say in an Oligarchy.

Nea Byzantia wrote:John Tzimiskes (Nikephoros' nephew, if I'm not mistaken) and several other aristocratic conspirators snuck into the Imperial Bedchamber on the night of December 11th, 969, and stabbed the sovereign to death.

nothing like a well-established mechanism for the transfer of power that gives political actors incentives to behave well amirite lol

Senkaku wrote:nothing like a well-established mechanism for the transfer of power that gives political actors incentives to behave well amirite lol

This is why you need the approval of the SENATE and the LEGIONS, not of court castrati who are a violation of Roman law to begin with and bureaucrats who should be peregrini and freedmen by all rights, smh.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Senkaku wrote:nothing like a well-established mechanism for the transfer of power that gives political actors incentives to behave well amirite lol

This is why you need the approval of the SENATE and the LEGIONS, not of court castrati who are a violation of Roman law to begin with and bureaucrats who should be peregrini and freedmen by all rights, smh.

legion who? i don't know her, in THIS house the military is the servant of the state >:|

Conserative Morality wrote:

Senkaku wrote:nothing like a well-established mechanism for the transfer of power that gives political actors incentives to behave well amirite lol

This is why you need the approval of the SENATE and the LEGIONS, not of court castrati who are a violation of Roman law to begin with and bureaucrats who should be peregrini and freedmen by all rights, smh.

The Eastern Roman Empire DID have a Senate; but it was essentially just a formality by the 10th century; a continuation of the sycophantic and spineless Institution of the Principate days. Real political power lay with the Military and the approval of the Church. These types of palace coups rarely worked out well. Empress Theophano was exiled shortly after the events of December 11th (the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to crown John Tzimiskes as Emperor if he didn't banish the Scarlet Empress), and as for the eunuch Basil Lekapenos, Emperor Basil II (ruled: 976 AD - 1025 AD) had him deposed and blinded in 980. He was the first of the powerful Oligarchs - or Dynatoi to fall to Basil's purges. He wouldn't be the last.

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:This is why you need the approval of the SENATE and the LEGIONS, not of court castrati who are a violation of Roman law to begin with and bureaucrats who should be peregrini and freedmen by all rights, smh.

The Eastern Roman Empire DID have a Senate; but it was essentially just a formality by the 10th century; a continuation of the sycophantic and spineless Institution of the Principate days. Real political power lay with the Military and the approval of the Church. These types of palace coups rarely worked out well. Empress Theophano was exiled shortly after the events of December 11th (the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to crown John Tzimiskes as Emperor if he didn't banish the Scarlet Empress), and as for the eunuch Basil Lekapenos, Emperor Basil II (ruled: 976 AD - 1025 AD) had him deposed and blinded in 980. He was the first of the powerful Oligarchs - or Dynatoi to fall to Basil's purges. He wouldn't be the last.

While this does all sound like great novel material, purges and palace coups leading to exiles and blindings and such are not usually a sign of a particularly effective or desirable political system lol

Senkaku wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:The Eastern Roman Empire DID have a Senate; but it was essentially just a formality by the 10th century; a continuation of the sycophantic and spineless Institution of the Principate days. Real political power lay with the Military and the approval of the Church. These types of palace coups rarely worked out well. Empress Theophano was exiled shortly after the events of December 11th (the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to crown John Tzimiskes as Emperor if he didn't banish the Scarlet Empress), and as for the eunuch Basil Lekapenos, Emperor Basil II (ruled: 976 AD - 1025 AD) had him deposed and blinded in 980. He was the first of the powerful Oligarchs - or Dynatoi to fall to Basil's purges. He wouldn't be the last.

While this does all sound like great novel material, purges and palace coups leading to exiles and blindings and such are not usually a sign of a particularly effective or desirable political system lol

By our modern sensibilities, yes. For the standards of the time, however, it was a relatively effective system.

Senkaku wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:The Eastern Roman Empire DID have a Senate; but it was essentially just a formality by the 10th century; a continuation of the sycophantic and spineless Institution of the Principate days. Real political power lay with the Military and the approval of the Church. These types of palace coups rarely worked out well. Empress Theophano was exiled shortly after the events of December 11th (the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to crown John Tzimiskes as Emperor if he didn't banish the Scarlet Empress), and as for the eunuch Basil Lekapenos, Emperor Basil II (ruled: 976 AD - 1025 AD) had him deposed and blinded in 980. He was the first of the powerful Oligarchs - or Dynatoi to fall to Basil's purges. He wouldn't be the last.

While this does all sound like great novel material, purges and palace coups leading to exiles and blindings and such are not usually a sign of a particularly effective or desirable political system lol

Political intrigue and power-plays are normal parts of History. What is RussiaGate and the Mueller Debacle in the United States, but a series of intrigues between the Republicans and Democrats? Only the naive believe that political stability and control can be eternal. Changes of Dynasty and Leadership are just a normal part of the ebb and flow of Civilizations. That's universal, regardless of what political ideology or system a given State functions under.

Totally Not OEP wrote:

Torrocca wrote:
On the one hand, a stupid statement like, "lol commies all bad xD," does fall under the "all X are Y" rule. On the other... I don't think it's that meriting of an unofficial warning for a trivial one-off, especially when compared to all the much worse rulebreaking shit. On the third, and semi-unrelated to those two hands, I'd believe your statements of respect were more genuine if you referred to me as I prefer being referred to on here.

To what are you referring to?

I mean, how many times has it been that you've referred to me as Tor (a fucking browsing system) since I came out as trans, or Torrocca when literally next to nobody ever uses full nation names on this site?

That's what I'm talking about. I don't think these statements of respect are genuine because of that. But whatever.

Senkaku wrote:
legion who? i don't know her, in THIS house the military is the servant of the state >:|

>> implying that the Legions weren't loyal servants of the Res Publica

Titus... get the cross.

Nea Byzantia wrote:The Eastern Roman Empire DID have a Senate; but it was essentially just a formality by the 10th century; a continuation of the sycophantic and spineless Institution of the Principate days.

During the days of the Principate, outside of the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, the Senate was neither spineless nor sycophantic. It is exactly that view, however, that made the Byzies such degenerates.

Torrocca wrote:

Totally Not OEP wrote:
To what are you referring to?

I mean, how many times has it been that you've referred to me as Tor (a fucking browsing system) since I came out as trans, or Torrocca when literally next to nobody ever uses full nation names on this site?

That's what I'm talking about. I don't think these statements of respect are genuine because of that. But whatever.

There's no such thing as a standardized nickname for someone; people call me Proct or Procto interchangeably, even friends. Why is it a concern if you're called Tor or Torr?