Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You've completely and willfully misunderstood your opponent in order to cast him in a poor light. Unfortunately, the only people that fools is that group of people who were already inclined to you; it doesn't convince fence sitters.

Schat has offered a complete and well rounded critique of your ideological/moral flexibility, and so far all you've offered is snideness. This reflects the rather antiquated attitude of yesteryear that alliance leaders, regardless of artifice or moral ambiguity, deserved an extra measure of respect; then again ODN plays the game like it's 2007 anyway, so why stop now?

Your alliance has good people in it, but you yourself are a grandstanding, tone deaf rationalizer who avoids the truth. You have aided and abetted moral monsters, and you deserve every inch of the acrimony and aspersion Schattenman casts on you.

I don't expect your opinion to change; I expect of you the same amoral realpolitik I expect of many of the old alliances of your breed. But I know your game, and I loathe it. It's a way to lead, but it is souless; I am only reassured because if you remain on Bob you will get your just desserts, and taste the community contempt that you so rightfully merit.



The Network hungers....


for an honest man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that alarms me most in this is the following statement by my old friend Schattenmann:

- Vox Populi was a reactionary popular movement against the Continuum bloc's "hegemony" ...

I had always understood that Vox Populi's members, including Schattenmann himself, saw it as a revolutionary movement, which would seem a fair characterization. But here he is casting it as fascist, ultra-conservative, regressive. Unless, of course, he meant to say it was "reactive" rather than "reactionary"? But a wordsmith and able propagandist of his stature would not stumble over a key term of art like that, surely. Have we misunderstood what Vox was about all this time?

Much to think on here, no question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that alarms me most in this is the following statement by my old friend Schattenmann:

- Vox Populi was a reactionary popular movement against the Continuum bloc's "hegemony" ...

I had always understood that Vox Populi's members, including Schattenmann himself, saw it as a revolutionary movement, which would seem a fair characterization. But here he is casting it as fascist, ultra-conservative, regressive. Unless, of course, he meant to say it was "reactive" rather than "reactionary"? But a wordsmith and able propagandist of his stature would not stumble over a key term of art like that, surely. Have we misunderstood what Vox was about all this time?

Much to think on here, no question.


That is the most blatant and intentional misinterpretation I've ever heard. I expect better of an elder statesman like you, Pingu.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the most blatant and intentional misinterpretation I've ever heard. I expect better of an elder statesman like you, Pingu.

 

I respect Herr Schattenmann's skills as an orator and penman. From a lesser intellect, I would take this for ignorance or a casual blunder. But I don't think he is prone to either of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that alarms me most in this is the following statement by my old friend Schattenmann:

- Vox Populi was a reactionary popular movement against the Continuum bloc's "hegemony" ...

I had always understood that Vox Populi's members, including Schattenmann himself, saw it as a revolutionary movement, which would seem a fair characterization. But here he is casting it as fascist, ultra-conservative, regressive. Unless, of course, he meant to say it was "reactive" rather than "reactionary"? But a wordsmith and able propagandist of his stature would not stumble over a key term of art like that, surely. Have we misunderstood what Vox was about all this time?

Much to think on here, no question.

 

I went and looked up the word reactionary because I thought, "surely it only means that if you're cherry picking a definition", but I found that it is one of the most common definitions of the word. If you look further though, even though the word is usually used to describe people or movements that are against progressive and liberal changes, the more general definition simply indicates that it is a movement against radical change in the status quo. One could argue (and I assume that Schatt is) that Vox was a reactionary movement to the change of going from a multi polar world to a single polar one. In this case, the status quo was a good situation for the world, and this change was regressive and hegemonic, thus the reactionary movement. Many people forget this, but one has to remember that conservatism is merely the idea of continuing the way things are. Thus the resistance to change was not to regress the world state, but to prevent it from regressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that alarms me most in this is the following statement by my old friend Schattenmann:

- Vox Populi was a reactionary popular movement against the Continuum bloc's "hegemony" ...

I had always understood that Vox Populi's members, including Schattenmann himself, saw it as a revolutionary movement, which would seem a fair characterization. But here he is casting it as fascist, ultra-conservative, regressive. Unless, of course, he meant to say it was "reactive" rather than "reactionary"? But a wordsmith and able propagandist of his stature would not stumble over a key term of art like that, surely. Have we misunderstood what Vox was about all this time?

Much to think on here, no question.

That is the most blatant and intentional misinterpretation I've ever heard. I expect better of an elder statesman like you, Pingu.

I respect Herr Schattenmann's skills as an orator and penman. From a lesser intellect, I would take this for ignorance or a casual blunder. But I don't think he is prone to either of those.

I went and looked up the word reactionary because I thought, "surely it only means that if you're cherry picking a definition", but I found that it is one of the most common definitions of the word. If you look further though, even though the word is usually used to describe people or movements that are against progressive and liberal changes, the more general definition simply indicates that it is a movement against radical change in the status quo. One could argue (and I assume that Schatt is) that Vox was a reactionary movement to the change of going from a multi polar world to a single polar one. In this case, the status quo was a good situation for the world, and this change was regressive and hegemonic, thus the reactionary movement. Many people forget this, but one has to remember that conservatism is merely the idea of continuing the way things are. Thus the resistance to change was not to regress the world state, but to prevent it from regressing.

 

Two things and then let's not let a molehill become a mountain.
1. I did indeed mean reactive.  (The committed SchattenFan will have noticed long ago that a very large number of my posts bear edits--edit:because I notice these little things and fix them, because words do matter, like this, where someone might have read that without this edit and thought I meant to change what I said, not to improve clarity)
2. [OOC]We're speaking English but we're not in RL context.  I didn't pay much attention to reactionary v reactive because the moral majority and all the context it pours into the word "reactionary" doesn't have anything to do with CN.[/OOC]  I think I once wrote a good little thing about this,eh, 6 or 7 years ago.  I brush on this issue in regards to the term "anarchy" in this post

As Chunky points out, there are lots of different perspectives.

 

In essence, the first 11 people joined Vox in reaction to the treatment Polaris received from the Continuum (the noCB War), which was no different than the way Polaris itself was treating AAs and people (including me).  OsRavan can learn a lesson about true adherence to principle, here, because it didn't matter to me that Vox was actually defending Polaris from Q even though Polaris was itself a horrible alliance, because our principles were real and our principles took no regard of personalities.  It mattered that the same evils were happening again, and we were all sick of it, were all at rock bottom, and made our stand on principle.

 

Vox grew faster than any alliance in history overnight because of the principled nature of our stand.  Not because we were saying the right things about the right people, but because we had always said the right things and we were still saying the right things even when it was the wrong people.  Some people just wanted to smash things, like Chief Savage Man, or some people just wanted revenge, like Nordreich.  Fine, too.  But we were popular with the people because of what we represented. 

And our movement was reactive to the state of the world, and to a specific occurrence of a recurring theme.
 

Wow. You really are obsessed.  Even topics that have nothing to do with me, there I am.
 
::amused::. I wasnt aware that we are now blaming alliances that happened to fight in the same war for reps demanded by third party alliances.
 
What on earth GOONS.. an alliance never allied to me... demanding reps of you has to do with me I have no idea.  Unless you mean that no, I wouldnt peace out separately in a coalition war.  That, like not demanding reps, is something I dont believe in.
 
I'm consistent like that.
 
What you're really saying, is my stances have hurt you personally so you've an axe to grind.
 
 
When you find *ME* demanding reps you can come make your point.
 
 
In ant event, point, on balance i'm a fan of this treaty.

 
Os, you are arguing without an argument.  I understand why, it's a smudge on your character.  But it's a smudge you put there, not me, and you can't turn back time.

CoJ declared war on GOONS, MK attacked us without a declaration, then ODN "defended" MK from CoJ when we countered their undeclared war against us.  We were 20 nations against GOONS and MK and Umbrella.  You, yourself, OsRavan, personally declared war on CoJ with a lie about defense to get around ODN's legal structure surrounding declaring offensive vs defensive wars. 

ODN, under you, declared war on 20 nations already at war with 300 nations for giggles.

We fought for a few weeks.  I offered peace with ODN.  You, personally, yourself alone, refused to entertain surrender from CoJ unless CoJ surrendered to MK and GOONS at the same time.  I explained to you that GOONS wanted $400,000,000 to $500,000,000 from CoJ and we would not surrender under those terms.  You, personally, alone said "so pay them the money."  The logs have been posted numerous times.

 

You, personally, used the full force and weight of ODN to push CoJ into paying reps for peace in a sham war contrived precisely to put that pressure on us. 

 

And all of that can be laid aside.  Your ally MK constantly took reps during the same period while ODN was gleefully fighting on its behalf, so you can take GOONS completely out of the picture and the result is the same. 

 

You have no principles.

 

You're a bastard and a liar, OsRavan.  Not because you pissed on my boots, but because that's just what you are and then you happened to piss on a pair of boots worn by me.

 

Well written as usual, Schatt, you old spy.
 
However as far as the "endorsement" goes, in my opinion you are too harsh.  Surviving well (and note, I said surviving "well" as opposed to just being here with a small nation, little respect, etc.) in this world requires one of two things or both.  Either that the alliance be large enough to defend itself AND stay out of people's business (such as GPA and WTF  - your friend made a good choice of where to go to keep his ideals and still remain relatively safe)  or an alliance needs to be well connected with other alliances that the combination is large enough to deter others from harming either of them.   In order to keep the relationships - or "partnership" as you said - going, compromises have to be made.  This requires not always getting everything you want.  In other words, alliances can and often do support each others positions while at the same time not necessarily endorsing them.

 

Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful response.

 

I think when you say "In order to keep the relationships - or "partnership" as you said - going, compromises have to be made." that you and I are saying the same thing, where I word it "..alliances should choose allies whose actions align with their character and ideals, or accept the hypocrisy that their actions are at odds with their identity and move on.  (Realpolitik is just that..."

(emphasis mine)

I was probably too vague in saying "and move on" and maybe led you think I meant "and not sign that treaty" but I meant "sign that treaty knowing that it is hypocritical and without further consideration that it is an endorsement."

 

You're correct that alliances make treaties to prevent being attacked.  Think of it this way: creating the conditions of prosperity is a cornerstone of Vladimir's Francoist essays.  He says alliances remove nations from the "state of nature" (brutality) to facilitate prosperity.  Pull that out further: treaties remove alliances from the state of nature. 

But we must face the reality that peace cannot go on forever even with 100 treaties.  And so, the hypocritical alliance goes to war, anyway, with its head low and in its shame.  But it need not. There are enough alliances, and wars are damaging enough to both sides, that alliances can make principled FA choices without compromising in ways that betray their own consciences.  CoJ never had more than a couple ODPs at once, we got in everyone's way all the time, we were never attacked outright.

 

 

Thanks for the replies, it's neat that this is fostering real conversations.

Edited by Schattenmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an interesting interpretation, Chunky Monkey. But in that case, Vox Populi was surely a restorationist movement, looking to re-establish the status quo ante. That's not the word he used, though.

I note that Schattenmann doesn't approve of the term "hegemony" to describe the period of unipolar domination that Vox Populi sought to overturn. Nevertheless, it was an established order and Vox Populi was the challenger, whether its intentions were progressive or regressive. The terminology he chose suggests the latter. This is a new reading of history, I believe.

Edit: posted at the same time as Herr Schattenmann. I am glad to have his clarification that he did indeed mean reactive. I am well satisfied.

Edited by Pingu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If alliances are forced to make decisions that are hypocritical in order to advance their interests, it is a sign that their underlying belief system is not in line with reality. The genius of Vladimir was that he created an ideological system designed to be completely in line with reality, thus allowing an entity that practiced his ideology to operate at peak efficiency without second-guessing its own decisiveness and authority. It isn't necessary to bend over backwards and morally justify actions if they are self-justified... or as Moldavi said (generalizing), to act against the alliance sovereign is to be wrong by definition.

 

As to Vox, I was a member (Mobius 1) and socially it was basically the jail of this world, and I was only there because of an EZI sentence handed down by NPO. I know for certain that I would have likely been opponents of many of the people there ideologically speaking had we all not been crushed by the Hegemony at some point. The whole thing was very chaotic, going from one half-baked plot to the next, and Starfox101 admitted sometime back that he rigged the vote against my senate run so I dispute any claims that Vox was principled at all. I think the main success of Vox was seizing the red senate and proving that NPO wasn't invincible, but I really don't think Vox made any lasting legacy for our world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If alliances are forced to make decisions that are hypocritical in order to advance their interests, it is a sign that their underlying belief system is not in line with reality. The genius of Vladimir was that he created an ideological system designed to be completely in line with reality, thus allowing an entity that practiced his ideology to operate at peak efficiency without second-guessing its own decisiveness and authority. It isn't necessary to bend over backwards and morally justify actions if they are self-justified... or as Moldavi said (generalizing), to act against the alliance sovereign is to be wrong by definition.

 

As to Vox, I was a member (Mobius 1) and socially it was basically the jail of this world, and I was only there because of an EZI sentence handed down by NPO. I know for certain that I would have likely been opponents of many of the people there ideologically speaking had we all not been crushed by the Hegemony at some point. The whole thing was very chaotic, going from one half-baked plot to the next, and Starfox101 admitted sometime back that he rigged the vote against my senate run so I dispute any claims that Vox was principled at all. I think the main success of Vox was seizing the red senate and proving that NPO wasn't invincible, but I really don't think Vox made any lasting legacy for our world.

 

 

That's a bunch of unmitigated nonsense, but whatever makes you feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won a popular election against Nintenderek by a vote or two, I forget. According to the charter, yes, you should have won. However, given that you were ultimately damaging our cause, and looked at as the village idiot by myself and Doitzel, we ensured that did not happen. I'm not sure if what you are arguing for is a good thing...as you were slaughtered in the run off and then forced out of Vox.

 

Explain how this is principled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you let facts get in the way of his stories.


So you and Kerschbs must be keeping track of each of your allies's members AA histories and determine your personal like/dislikes towards alliances based on that. Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you and Kerschbs must be keeping track of each of your allies's members AA histories and determine your personal like/dislikes towards alliances based on that.

My personal opinions are based off how reliable an alliance has proven itself to be able to maintain the word of documents signed with it, not simply additional NS in the event I happen to be on the winning side, I'd rather sign with friends I can count on over the fair weather variety. On the topic of that, NG was a reliable ally to my friends in NSO, and I suspect that Caustic and Schrodinger will prove the same to NpO as well.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinions are based off how reliable an alliance has proven itself to be able to maintain the word of documents signed with it, not simply additional NS in the event I happen to be on the winning side, I'd rather sign with friends I can count on over the fair weather variety. On the topic of that, NG was a reliable ally to my friends in NSO, and I suspect that Caustic and Schrodinger will prove the same to NpO as well.

 

I try to avoid *any* respect or disrespect to alliances. In my experience alliances seem to have an independent existence but a change of leadership can and often does change their character overnight. Even people change and grow (or shrink) but nowhere near that quickly.

 

That said, NG is unbelievably awesome. There just isn't any way to overstate that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best thing ES ever did was knocking out GOONS and the whole UJW affair. Tears flow to this day and they fill my heart with joy even today.

 

ES certaintly new how to push peoples buttons and tell them just what they needed to fight by his side.  

He was able to bring a huge amount of strength to his cause.  Things changed when  NpO threatened to take the throne of most powerful alliance from NPO and that was the beginning of the roll fest NpO has experienced ever sense.  

 

Still, that war leaves a bad taste in my mouth when discussing it due to the circumstances before it and how it ended.  As far as I'm concerned we're all better off forgetting that part of history and remember the numerous other wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know many have a bad taste in the mouth over how it ended.

 

To the best of my knowledge none of those people actually blamed ES for that personally.

 

In practice he seems to have simply been the next best target, so I kind of wish people would get over it. I don't know if he has the time available to be a driver anymore but I'd like to think if he ever does his old enemies would remember him more for a memorable military campaign than for an entirely different matter over which he had, as best I know, no control at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...