How would you go about depicting a democratic nation that values civil liberties...

My bad.

I have only heard it described second hand. I'll probably make a trip to the library on my way home.

Go full idiocracy and populism. Make democracy the power of the very stupid masses, led by very charismatic but inherintly evil frontmen.

And ofcourse let the good guys be good guys, but with oil. Very, very wanted oil.

"Democracy is only good when the outcome is one we like."

Ask them to clarify. I can understand Sweden depicted as degenerate/declining, but actively evil?

Swedes are smug cunts with unwarranted sense of self-importance but I wouldn't go so far as calling them evil. They're basically Europe's Canada with more meatballs and less seal bashing.

you could start looking at counter enlightenment philosophers. but i warn you, their world is a demented twisting mass of insanity.

the society you are describing op is called classical liberalism, which is derived from enlightenment, reason, empiricism, individualism. the counter enlightenment hates pretty much all of those things. they value emotion, collectivism, mysticism, authority.

so basically you can portray liberalism like the SJWs do, as a ever expanding capitalistic monoculture that stamps out local cultures and turn them into strip malls and corporate drones.

or you can portray liberals like the nazis do, decadent and weak culture of merchants that hate national heritage and forsake "true" culture of strength authority and martial prowess. they achieve their goals through deception and guile rather than stength. and undermine authority and order.

then theres the marxists, who just hate any stratefied structure of any kind. they portray the liberals as oppressors who enslave the working class.

all of those counter enlightenment portrayals of liberalism are dumb and wrong btw, but its a good start.

pic related is an attempt by postmodern leftists to portray classical liberalism as bad.

>civil liberties
check
>social mobility
check
>free thinking
check

>pic related is an attempt by postmodern leftists to portray classical liberalism as bad.
Classical liberalism is like Socialism: on paper, it sounds nice, in practice, it doesn't work. Classical liberalism fails because it is constantly used the way Red Skull is using it here, as a means to rile up a population against a perceived "enemy", regardless of the truth.
It has been used in America as a cudgel against every nationality/ethnicity that was not European descended German or British, sometimes French, literally for centuries, and is derided because, hindsight being 20/20 and divorced from incendiary emotions that buoyed it and clouded reason, it was rightly seen as a tool to get individuals to power, usually with disastrous results for someone else.

>is derided because, hindsight being 20/20 and divorced from incendiary emotions that buoyed it and clouded reason, it was rightly seen as a tool to get individuals to power, usually with disastrous results for someone else.

Sounds like pretty much every political and religious ideology since the dawn of time then.

so this guy right here is an example of a postmodernist leftist that hates liberalism. postmoderism is probably the deepest crazy that can exist.
the postmodernists think that the reason and science and freedom and democracy that liberalism generated, is really just a tool for dominating anyone you hate.

basically its a combination of communist and fascist complaints about liberalism. its how you get shit like "cultural appropiation"

>Red /pol/

MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR
the outback is the land of do as you please, take what you want

/pol/ is a pretty good description of that civil, democratic evil.

whats that pic from?

>Confusing classical liberalism with populism
>Implying classical liberalism ever bothers to appeal to "the masses"

LaughingFounders.jpg

looks like art from a porn comic by a guy named reginald. its called "i roved out in search of truth and love" or some shit.

...

You must be an American with your line of thinking. The way classical liberalism is used is the opposite of reason and individualism. It is commonly used to encourage tribalism and outrage, and has been called out as such.
>implying one was ever free of the other in practical use
That part where I wrote about the differences of what is on paper compared to practice must have just been ignored.
I understand, people on Veeky Forums rarely read the entire post before greentexting.

>red skull
>classical liberalism

Red Skull is explicitly fascist, he's utilizing the veneer of liberalism to spread his message

He's still not wrong persay

Nazi Captain America is better glorious leader though

>It is commonly used to encourage tribalism and outrage, and has been called out as such.

Funnily enough mostly by people who also encourage tribalism and outrage culture.

>not european descended german or british

Oh no, we used it against the germans and irish too, people just like to forget

Pretty much only the French/British were exempt.

Germans generally congregated entirely in their own communities, and were successful enough to deflect others. See the entirety of Pennsylvania.
And the people who don't fall neatly into the clearly parceled ideologues you are fronting?
This is starting to sound like the presidential election in terms of the goalpost moving and avoidance.

and yet classical liberalism is what destroyed slavery, theocracy, and invented cosmopolitanism and tolerance

so thats one of the features of postmodernism. they dont believe that language is a tool for communicating truth, it is just a weapon to hurt anyone you hate. in this case the hated thing is classical liberals, so they try to associate it with nazis. for example, over the last few years various leftists of every sort calling everything that isnt far left fascist, or racist, or sexist. its a rhetorical strategy.

nationalism originally was enlightenment project, and thus part of classical liberalism. it freed various peoples from foreign fuedal lords, and allowed them to govern themselves according to their own taste.

Have it so there's a neighboring kingdom with a Fisher King thing going on, or where there's some magical need to have a king - not even an absolute monarch, maybe something more like modern or imperial Britain. And they know this, they know they need to have a king and don't care if other countries that don't need kings don't have kings.

But this other country, they HATE kings, and gear up for war to 'liberate' the kingdom from its 'tyrant.' This other country knows about the magic, but aren't really sure they believe it. Yelling about the empty justifications of tyranny gets a crowd going a lot better than trying to explain the results of a nonpartisan wizard cabal's study.

The purest examples of democracy are lynch mobs and gang rapes. Take that premise and run with it.

more importantly why is the pic censored?

What... i dont even.

Yeah if you ask literal fascists what their depiction of evil is, they'll point at the nicest place on earth to live. There is a reason all those muslims want to go there.

Actually, check out nazi propaganda from ww2 about america, pic related. Anything can be depicted as evil.

Just take the latest South Park version of Denmark

Blue board.

just remove the principle of minority protection and see how big groups just fuck smaller groups over for fun.

By and large the modern liberalism and its identity politics seems to be an ideology solely dedicated to keep the underclass divided and used as a tool to divert public's attention from whatever the ruling caste finds problematic. For an example of this, remember how the Zimmerman case suddenly became a high profile news story when the US government was found to be guilty of spying its own citizens?

>How would you go about depicting a democratic nation that values civil liberties, social mobility and free thinking as evil?
>How would you justify having such a nation as the primary villain of a campaign?

WHY HELLO THERE

>evil
Nice try, Gaul, go back to rubbing those rocks together while a real civilization takes care of the known world.

Why are we pretending red skull's speech here has anything to do with classical liberalism? Its appeal to paternalistic nationalism, 'traditional values' and xenophobia is textbook romanticism, i.e. classical liberalism's backlash and antithesis.

The majority don't magically know what's right, and if they did know they wouldn't care. Have you seen the majority lately? The majority suck.

You would have the protagonists as the upper class of a repressive regime, and have their removal subject their country to factionalism and civil war.

CASE IN POINT: THE MENTALITY OF YOUR TYPICAL REPUBLICAN ERA ROMAN

>or you can portray liberals like the nazis do, decadent and weak culture of merchants that hate national heritage and forsake "true" culture of strength authority and martial prowess. they achieve their goals through deception and guile rather than stength. and undermine authority and order.
Not gonna lie, I read that in steve blum starscream voice.

Bad example dude.

James Madison wrote extensively on the "tyranny of the majority' in the Federalist Papers.

a friend pointed out to me once that the Transformers likely all speak cybertronian (which probably sounds like modem screeching), and any translations/voices provided to us come courtesy of the Autobots who aren't actively trying to kill us.

This is why Optimus Prime sounds fucking amazing and Star Scream sounds like a whiny little fuckboy.

Is it? I'm not saying the protagonists have to be good.

you are correct that the modern democractic party is basically urban elites that want to sell our country to china, and use a gaggle of hyphenated americans to distract us from that fact.

what you have to realize is that the democratic party is not classically liberal. they are really a combination of social liberals and postmodern leftists. the social liberals are the right wing of the party, and the postmoderns (the identity politics obsessed ones) are the left wing.

thats a good way to do it really. portray them as ruthlessly effiecent expansionists that shit on all the various hippie cultures surrounding them. through their badass government, and meritocratic society, they are able field massive armies with savage effectiveness. and they convert hippies by force to their way of life.

Blame the fact that yanks basically run a single party system.
>you can vote for party a or you could vote for party b
>not that it really matters as their both programs are basically the one and same and the parties which actually have unique programs will not get more than 0.1% of votes

>Is it?
Saddam was tyrant, not monarch (tyrant cares only about his personal power, while monarch care about state and society), his secularism was fake and collapsed right after his death and his officers was one of the founders of ISIS.
Iran would be better protag.

wasn't always like that, took over a century of crookery for the dem/rep national conventions to twist, rewrite, and bend the rules to this state.

Once upon a time, you had to take the other sides losing candidate as your VP. IMAGINE!

Just ramp up election shit to a million. Fearmongering, shitflinging, inciting violence, whatever you want. Make democracy a tool to regularly move the masses into evil with emotion.

And the invasion kicked off a lovely war that devastated the people and divided the country into three parts. That's pretty evil.

>(tyrant cares only about his personal power, while monarch care about state and society)
You're making me laugh. Have you seen what Saudis spend money on?

That's an inevitable consequence of democracy. When power is derived from numbers alone, people will collect together in numbers as great as possible because that's the only way to have power. Numbers don't really add virtue to an absurd belief or a fundamentally misconceived plan, but we pretend that they do.

>That's pretty evil.
That's still just catalist for already existed inner processes.
>You're making me laugh. Have you seen what Saudis spend money on?
Yeah, and they are tyrants, following by your logic the Japan is empire, just because they call themselves Japan empire.

this is the inevitable result though

exactly like the tendency towards monopoly

>(tyrant cares only about his personal power, while monarch care about state and society)

exactly what the monarchs want you to think

Put it in the w40k setting.

Democracy ain't evil, Fascism ain't evil, Commies ain't evil.

Humans are evil, Bob. Humans.

You're using a private definition of "monarch" that reeks of No True Scotsman. A monarch and a tyrant aren't fundamentally different things; the only difference is that one has a more pejorative tone.

>exactly what the monarchs want you to think
I must apologise, by "monarch" I mean not only classical monarchy with dynasty and other things, but also dictators who used their power to improved not their personal power, but their states, like Park Chung-hee and Lee Kuan Yew.

You are really out of touch if you think that ancient Rome had any of that in meaningful levels.

well you should probably use the right words for the things you want to say, even if the things you want to say are stupid

1010/1010

It had pretensions towards it and was frankly, closer than anyone else barring maybe the classical greeks

The Classical Greeks are also a good example of how to do democratic villains. They were pretty much the bad guys in the whole conflict with Persia.

>It had pretensions towards it
It was less "pretensions" and more "pretending". Republican Rome was a de facto quasi-theocratic, militarist oligarchy whose tax system was based on literal extortion and the electoral process was build around intimidating the electorate.

So the United States?

While I realize religious zealotry might be a cliche at this point, I think a good example would be American Colonial Puritans and the concept of predestination. If I remember, Puritans believed in predestination, which entailed that god had planned every life in advance, and any deviation from that plan was sinful. Moreover,I think Puritans would regulate communities through elected councils.

As for fitting the antagonist role, have the nation declare war on the basis of manifest destiny or predestined by god(s).

Because they fuck everyone who isn't a part of their nation over. Big time.

> on paper, it sounds nice
Nearly everything sounds good on paper though. No one looks at the theory and sees the flaws in application. Otherwise no one would ever try applying it it.

kill all humans

Damn straight.

What's the comic?

>There is a reason all those muslims want to go there.
Because nowhere else in Europe is still stupid enough to tolerate them.

...

A Hive Mind

>So the United States?
Imagine the worst caricature of the USA that you can think. Now multiple that by 20 and make so Wal-mart owns the right to collect taxes. That is how the Roman Republic would look like.

a religion like christianity or islam are real and god wills the word to follow rules like those described in those religions, so people who choose to be free thinkers and democratic are actively working against god and thus are evil.

United States of America.

Just have them do basically what the US have been doing for the last 50+ years, Bonus points for not-hillary clinton and not-dick cheney

Well dont forget that the roman republic would actually spend money to improve infrastructure.

They value civil liberties, social mobility, and free thinking for themselves only. Their nation is destined to rule, others are to be conquered or exterminated.

>How would you go about depicting a democratic nation that values civil liberties, social mobility and free thinking as evil?

Basically the entire nation is filled with selfish cunts. All those things work perfectly for selfish shits and D&D evil is pretty much just selfishness.

>Well dont forget that the roman republic would actually spend money to improve infrastructure.
Only the military related one. The rest was either later imperial works or stuff build by the local government out of their own pocket.

>civil liberties, social mobility and free thinking as evil
Simple, make it all mandatory, and militarily enforced. And if you don't want the liberties and mobility that the govt has decided everyone must have, then you obviously aren't a true countryman, and should be forcefully reeducated so you can accept your liberties properly.

Afterall everyone is free to seek improvement and thought, unless your endangers the civil liberties and thoughts of others, then you need to check your privilege

I believe it's this one
g.e-hentai.org/g/998066/50c2c5f56c/

You can play on the idea of the zeitgeist.
In Country A, everyone votes, everyone pays their taxes, standards of living are increasing, the state looks after their citizens and the citizens in turn support the state.
Unfortunately, Country B invaded for some reason. The As voted to go to war and mobilised. They finally defeated the Bs and voted if they should accept their surrender. The As voted against this, as the hatred of Country B had only increased during the war. So Country B is crushed, it's people slaughtered. The As see this as a just punishment.
Then, somebody in the A government puts forward the idea that they could invade other countries, nipping any potential enemies in the bud. The As, sure in their strength and righteousness, vote to do so.
Eventually, it could reach the point where they've been at war for so long, the As consider this the normal state of affairs, or at least the state most comfortable with. Soldiers being back plunder, which boosts the economy, the citizens of A are able to colonise the land taken from their enemies and there's a steady supply of patriotic young people to sign up to the armed forces, buoyed by societal pressure and the idea this is a "just war".

So, Russia?

Any Muslim-majority nation with elections.

A bunch of nasty futurists who are willing to plow over farmlands, demolish villages, throw some favored groups over the others, and destroy other peoples' cultures and livelihoods in the name of progress. They push their rhetoric towards all their rivals; never mind if your nation is ran by a benevolent king or a benign emperor - if you're not exactly the same as them in political structure (in spite of their supposed multiculturalist preachings: they want you to be THEIR brand of your culture - your culture have a caste system or something that implies gender roles? That has to go, pal), you're considered a heathen. Whatever the case, you're opening your doors up to their trade and culture whether you like it or not, and you're going to function as a good boy cog to their economic hegemony, or else you will die.

Tradition is considered stagnant and repugnant to them, and if you dare hold onto it in any way shape or form, or worse, put tradition over their personal feelings, they will pull no punches to destroy you. Your simple existence is oppressive to them, and for many it would be best if you simply died.

user, this would be a lot better if you didn't project the MRA mentality so hard.

Apologies, I got far too carried away, but the gist is that they're convinced that only their way of thinking is the "right" way, and those who are destroyed into bringing the world into their view are necessary sacrifices, for what are they if not evil if they're willing to defend backwards, degenerate policies of the past?

A view I see takes a lot of inspiration from religious fanaticism. Ideological fanaticism?

Because there they are valued more and get more help than the eldery and homeless?
Because there are "cultural exchange programs" with little kids?
Because you don't have to integrate at all?

I don't think I can call it "the ne cest place on earth" when you've got shit like feministic snow plowing and mansplaining hotlines, swedecuck

So why don't you use the Romans, who did exactly what you are saying to the tee, rather than fronting the skewed far edge MRA mentality?

Well to be honest, you're the first one to bring up the Roman Republic as an idea of democracy as a force of oppression as opposed to everyone's various takes on the evils of the US.

Which looking back, the Republic was sort of nasty, having conquered the then-perfectly functional states of Greece and Carthage for reasons of prestige. The reason Caesar was able to steer it into a de-facto dictatorship at all was because a dictator was preferable to the previous system at hand.