Unko Kalaikz Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 To be an enemy of the Order is to be inherently wrong. Recently I have invoked a certain level of hatred and anger by saying the following: It is not NPO's responsibility to avoid making enemies; it is your duty to avoid being an enemy of the Order. While the logical mind will be able to grasp the truth of these words almost immediately, there are those lured by the deceptive grasp of idealism who denies the individual so imprisoned the opportunity of logically processing the statement -- and instead sends them into a spiral of emotional backlash and denial. It is my hope to rehabilitate those affected by this disease of dogs, and educate them in the proper ways of Francoist thought. Your duty is to your nation, to be an open enemy of the NPO is to be failing as a national leader. To be an enemy of the Order is to be inherently wrong. Any opponent of intelligence might attempt to construe the quoted statement as a reference to morality and "right vs wrong." Aha! You criticize Vox Populi for endorsing moralism yet preach it yourself! Not so. By "inherently wrong," we do not allude to moralistic misconceptions as our besieged friends do. Rather, we are referring to a more objective means of measuring correct conduct (the basis of Francoist theory). I will not burden you, the reader, with an analysis of material conditions (Vladimir has covered this extensively) and will instead skip to the steak of the plate. By objective measures, science has determined some basic principles of the state of nature and the world we inhabit. Perhaps the most important premise is that conflict is generally undesirable and inhibits the realization of potential of a given nation or alliance, and that reducing undesired conflict allows the ruler to advance the interests of his nation (as determined scientifically in a materialist sense). By this, we can say that it is in the interests of the nation to grow (infrastructure, technology, and wonders, for example). These are all actually means of power (the ability to influence others) as well as security. The two are related, because with power (whether militarily, politically, charismatically, or otherwise) you can secure the advancement of your nation, or reach your nations potential. So, a nations potential is met not only by increasing his countries level of power at the national level, but also his own influence abroad (further advancing his nation and the nations of his allies). Although perhaps initially this seems cold, the reality is that with most nations following this natural tendency to advance their interests, the tendency of cooperation becomes more and more visible -- which is why we see longer and more prosperous stretches of peace (aka the Pax Pacifica). From a humanistic sense this growth of civilization can be seen as highly beneficial to the citizens of the various nations involved in this mutual effort at cooperation. In terms of natural selection on the international level, we see clear stratification with the passage of time as the most qualified, stable and intelligent nation rulers float at the top of the developing global civilization(s), while you see the most abject failures at the bottom of the muck (vox populi, U-FAIL, flying tigers, etc). Thus, the people who control alliances like NPO are at the very top of their game (and their success of course earns them legions of haters, largely failures sitting at the bottom of societal stratification). Conflict continues to, and always will exist, but the conflicts become smaller and smaller in nature, and those who have proven themselves as worthy of being at the top of civilization (via the trials of time and proven competency) will always continue to prevail. This is inevitable and no matter the efforts of the failures, will always be the case. Which leads back to the original point made: To openly conflict with the Order, or to oppose Civilization as a whole, is to be in the wrong. It means you have not correctly chosen the right steps to advance your nation, which is your duty as leader. It means you have set yourself up for failure, because no matter your intelligence you will never be competent enough to defeat the combined minds and strength and decency of civilization. By merely taking that action, you have failed and done wrong. This is probably not your fault, as you have been deluded by emotions or "ideologies" pushed by confused shysters or vengeful nation leaders. Your idealism has and will betray you, and has shackled you into bonds far stronger than NPO can do. Because no matter who you blame, all actions and decisions you have made are your own. To liberate yourself will require that you cast aside your chains of moralism and idealistic foibles, and think with a logical mind. To remember that your goal and your duty is to advance your, and your nations and alliances self interests, and you can never do that while in conflict with civilization itself. Logic, and not emotion, is what sets aside man from the beasts. The Order will likely be the pinnacle of civilization for months and years to come. Even if they fall, all that will occur is a continuation of the march of civilization, and another great alliance or group of alliances will replace them, of exactly the same nature. Peace and prosperity will be inevitable whatever the hiccups we face. Embrace Civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowman809 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Are you part of NATO or NPO. What would you do if NATO went against the NPO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Are you part of NATO or NPO. What would you do if NATO went against the NPO? Read the essay and you will know my answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) Haha. Thanks for the laugh Count de Silva. Your entire post is of course horribly flawed, but funny none the less. Edited February 16, 2009 by Ragashingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 So you're actually an Ivan reroll?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Even if they fall, all that will occur is a continuation of the march of civilization, and another great alliance or group of alliances will replace them, of exactly the same nature. And what if this other great alliance happens to be one that was an enemy of the Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 And what if this other great alliance happens to be one that was an enemy of the Order? Then it would essentially be the new Order wouldn't it? It doesn't matter what alliance the Order is, more important is the fact that opposing [the] Order itself is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valkyrie9002 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Then it would essentially be the new Order wouldn't it? It doesn't matter what alliance the Order is, more important is the fact that opposing [the] Order itself is wrong. So we should all just quit now, shouldn't we? Because the game will never change if an Order remains in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 In that case, if a great alliance rose up that embodied The Order more completely than the NPO, and the NPO decided to oppose it, what would you do? How could you be sure that either side was the one true Order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I'll admit I lol'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) Gatherum sighed dismalley, shaking his head. Silva, I am sorry, but the only thing keeping this from sounding incredibly like something The Scholar would write is the absence of an espionage ring aimed at finding dissent within alliances against the Orders. For one, Pacifica, while the most dominant and powerful force on Digiterra, is not necessarily the pinnacle of civilization simply because they have not achieved the goal of their own philosophy of Francoism...at least, not in the way you would describe it. Which leads back to the original point made: To openly conflict with the Order, or to oppose Civilization as a whole, is to be in the wrong. It means you have not correctly chosen the right steps to advance your nation, which is your duty as leader. It means you have set yourself up for failure, because no matter your intelligence you will never be competent enough to defeat the combined minds and strength and decency of civilization. There are three possible meanings for this: 1. Join the Order. 2. Ally yourself with the Order. 3. If you are attacked by the Order, then concede. This is anathema simply because it only allows for a world in which the Order can conveniently exist in. The very fact that other alliances exist is testament to how most of the world disagrees with such a thought, which, ironically enough, puts you in an odd position, because of your own AA. If you do not wish to oppose the Order, then why do you not join it? The only future I see for you in a hypothetical war in which NATO and Pacifica are on opposite sides and where NATO's side emerges victorious is you being hunted down and destroyed for betraying your alliance, with your philosophies here crashing down around you. I will not burden you, the reader, with an analysis of material conditions (Vladimir has covered this extensively) and will instead skip to the steak of the plate. By objective measures, science has determined some basic principles of the state of nature and the world we inhabit. Perhaps the most important premise is that conflict is generally undesirable and inhibits the realization of potential of a given nation or alliance, and that reducing undesired conflict allows the ruler to advance the interests of his nation (as determined scientifically in a materialist sense). An argument that makes sense, until you realise that Pacifica is the most aggressive attacker this world has ever seen. Never, save for skirmishes involving small entities like U-FAIL and involving alliances declaring war in defense of an ally, has the Order ever been in a truly defensive war. If the above is to be what the Order represents, then it should not have been in as many wars as it has been, and instead, taken a sole path of economical growth. This, however, has not happened. Frankly, this is a double-standard. Conflict continues to, and always will exist, but the conflicts become smaller and smaller in nature, and those who have proven themselves as worthy of being at the top of civilization (via the trials of time and proven competency) will always continue to prevail. This is inevitable and no matter the efforts of the failures, will always be the case. Another inconsistency, given that Pacifica was not always on the top of the world. Putting aside arguments on who won the Great Patriotic War, Pacifica was not on the top then, nor were they later, when The Legion surpassed them in strength for a period of time, and were on the top. GOONS did so as well, and so did the GPA, who held the top position by actually following what you describe, merely not in those words, for a long, long time. However, all had that stripped away from them, showing they, as powers that be, were not invincible. What makes Pacifica so different? They are tough, but, like the rest of us, are not infallible, no matter how much you would like to think they are. Even if that is not your argument, the claim that they are Civilization also means that that is fallible as well. Why in the hell would anyone want to conform without an open mind to something like that? The Order will likely be the pinnacle of civilization for months and years to come. Even if they fall, all that will occur is a continuation of the march of civilization, and another great alliance or group of alliances will replace them, of exactly the same nature. Peace and prosperity will be inevitable whatever the hiccups we face. Okay. So, if the Orders fall, who do you support then? The new guy on top? I suppose that means you're supporting the height of Civilization, sure, but it also means that you are misguided in regard to your own arguments because you are, in effect, admitting that Civilization can crumble, with a new one made. This last point of yours is a contradiction of everything you said prior. I believe I'll leave it at that for now. Voxians...don't be mad. Edited February 16, 2009 by Gatherum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) In that case, if a great alliance rose up that embodied The Order more completely than the NPO, and the NPO decided to oppose it, what would you do? How could you be sure that either side was the one true Order? That would be decided by whoever wins the conflict and is able to consolidate power and again bring peace and prosperity back to the lands. Essentially, it is a question of competency and ability... not who is the "true order." Nevertheless, I am confident that the Order will continue to be the Order. The OP title references The Order, NPO (along with the entirety of civilization), because we are dealing in the here and now and not some imagined future. Edited February 16, 2009 by Count da Silva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Are you part of NATO or NPO. What would you do if NATO went against the NPO? He's not a part of NPO because even they want nothing to do with him. This is another of his attempts to impress them so that they might deem him worthy. As we've seen from their past admittances of Mogar and HeinousOne, however, they set the bar high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unko Kalaikz Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 He's not a part of NPO because even they want nothing to do with him. This is another of his attempts to impress them so that they might deem him worthy. As we've seen from their past admittances of Mogar and HeinousOne, however, they set the bar high. It could also have to do with the fact I'm perfectly comfortable in the peace and quiet of NATO, where I can pursue my intellectual studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) It could also have to do with the fact I'm perfectly comfortable in the peace and quiet of NATO, where I can pursue my intellectual studies. What's so loud about Pacifica? I mean, while we as Voxians disagree with him a lot, Vladimir has successfully shown himself to be an avid intellectual, and has been in Pacifica since, I believe, its inception, in a fantastical world far away... Edited February 16, 2009 by Gatherum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) It could also have to do with the fact I'm perfectly comfortable in the peace and quiet of NATO, where I can pursue my intellectual studies. Ah, good point. Pursuing anything "intellectual" is very risky in the NPO. What's so loud about Pacifica? Edited February 16, 2009 by Doitzel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I chuckled a bit. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Some of us don't exist for the sole purpose of just building up our nations. Without that premise your entire "philosophy" falls to shreds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) Some of us don't exist for the sole purpose of just building up our nations. Without that premise your entire "philosophy" falls to shreds. Ehhh...not defending his philosophy or anything, but only regarding that, his philosophy stands because if that is not your purpose, then there is something inherently wrong with how you do things. Which is why I like to be wrong sometimes. Edited February 16, 2009 by Gatherum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Ehhh...not defending his philosophy or anything, but only regarding that, his philosophy stands because if that is not your purpose, then there is something inherently wrong with how you do things.Which is why I like to be wrong sometimes. I prefer to reinvent what "right" means, force everyone to accept my definition at the barrel of a gun, and be right all the time. I guess it depends on your upbringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I prefer to reinvent what "right" means, force everyone to accept my definition at the barrel of a gun, and be right all the time.I guess it depends on your upbringing. Aye, but then, being right does not mean being happy. For example, you once said that the terms given to Polaris in the last global war were meant to keep them from ever being sanctioned again. I think many of us were happy to be wrong in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Ehhh...not defending his philosophy or anything, but only regarding that, his philosophy stands because if that is not your purpose, then there is something inherently wrong with how you do things.Which is why I like to be wrong sometimes. What you believe to be the goal of your existence is subjective and someone having different goals for their existence doesn't make them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatherum Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) What you believe to be the goal of your existence is subjective and someone having different goals for their existence doesn't make them wrong. Aye, but I meant "wrong", here, mostly in the context of Silva's argument. I say "mostly", because, I have been happy to be wrong before, in other situations. Edited February 16, 2009 by Gatherum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yubyubsan Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 So you're actually an Ivan reroll?! You may as well ask if (OOC?: Bill Engvall is a reincarnation of Bill Hicks). As to the OP, I didn't do much more than skim over it, but the basis seems to be more of the same drivel we've all heard before. If NPO speaks, they are right by virtue of having stated whatever it is they stated. If you are against the NPO, you are immediately wrong. It's all been said before, by leaders who had far more credibility and influence than you. Do you really expect anyone to take this stuff seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Aye, but I meant "wrong", here, mostly in the context of Silva's argument.I say "mostly", because, I have been happy to be wrong before, in other situations. It's a circular argument, "I'm right because I say it is". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts