Cortath

Too obvious.

Yes, I assume this. You caught me. It's very simple. They plotted before First FAN War. They plotted during peace. They plotted during Second FAN War. They plot now. That's where we are right now. Why do you think us so stupid as to think they have changed? It not up to us to "see" this change, but for them to prove it to us. And they know how to do that.

This is a reproduction of a weekly address given to the Body Republic of the New Pacific Order. It generally runs about once a "week", and is an official production of the Media Corps of the New Pacific Order. This address was given today, so please note that this address and subsequent may refer to events that are not contemporary with the time of the reproduction post. The Addresses tend to address principles we believe embody Pacifica, with a heavy emphasis on Francoist thought. Not all addresses specifically discuss Francoism directly, however. Hail my Comrades! A question that has puzzled many Pacificans these past many weeks is a grave difficulty confronting our Francoist roots. It has shaken the very foundations of our Francoist institutions and has caused a drastic re-evaluation of the material conditions of our society. Francoist scholars have plunged the depths of our secluded libraries. I myself spent more than a week deep in the Unlimited Wing of the Museum of Pacifica History, poring over ancient and dusty tomes, surrounded only by the sight of yellowed paper and moldy pages. The next week, my mind distraught with the implications of what I had learned, I took long walks through the Pacifica University, in the School of Sociology, forgoing my duties to teaching, passing by serene ponds with ducks and palm tree fronds, but finding no peace in the solace of its waters. I invited some of my wiser students and my colleagues to take a pilgrimage to the Emperor's Fortress at Francograd, and with an oath of silence, we travelled for days, pondering these imponderables until at last we arrived, only to have our silence broken by the vicious debates that ensued. "Are Sith Francoist? Does the Rule of Two demonstrate the accountability of autocratic democracy? Does the disposal of the Master of the Apprentice represent the recognition that Gods are dead, and only an reasoned, rational material analysis of society can be the basis of an alliance? Does the primordial dichotomy of light and dark represent an understanding of Userite and Feederite tendencies? Can this be reconciled with the evolution of Francoism on Planet Bob, so far away from our ancestral waters of the Pacific? Had the ADN really won?" These questions. And no answers. Fights broke out among students. Small riots and disturbances flared up in Francograd, and even Prefect of the Praetorian Guard and Francoist Scholar Vladimir put on his Praetorian sash and took to the streets to calm the people, as the terror of the normally ascetic and serene Francoist students spread to the populace. "But the basis of the Sith code is emotion," I stuttered to my students, as we calmed, "that appears to this Francoist as if the gods of democracy and the gods of religion are merely replaced with gods that rule from the emotions of the whims of a Sith Master!" "But as the Sith teach, it is conflict that breeds strength, and this is certainly Francoist!", one of my students replied, chiding me, "Francoism was forged in the great conflict in the turbulent waters of the Pacific, and it is well known that strong ideologies only grow from attacking the strong." "But how can strength grow if the once strongest is simply and ignobly dispatched by an Apprentice, who in turn, is made Master without the benefits of the prior Master's learnings?" I shot back, hoping to dispel this notion. "This seems a poor way for a Francoist institution to pass its memory from one Emperor to the next. The Rule of Two, while breeding strength from strength, a core Francoist tenant, seems irrational in its way of passing on training from one Sith to another." Some of the students nodded, understanding, but many remained unconvinced. "As with all reasoned and rational analysis of an ideology," I reasoned to them, "we must look to its core tenants for guidelines as to its true nature." "Indeed, we find that Sith ideology follows a logical and rational progression, that however, has at its core a false premise: passion!" I said, almost yelling, triumphantly. "There is no passion in Francoism, but passion for Francoism: it this irrational worship of passion that demonstrates, ultimately, that the Sith are not Francoist." I continued, "And it is un-Francoist in that the very nature of a Code is dogma. It is the worship of an ideal over the analysis of ideal in light of the material conditions of society. The Code cannot change! The Sith do not allow it to change! So though these Sith may appear Francoist, they are unchanging, and in stagnation lies death, for while the world changes, they do not. And Francoism demands change!" "Francoism demands change!" I continued hurriedly, excited that I had a found a point, noting the nodding students. "Francoism examines the material world and determines if our institutions are capable of meeting the challenge of a changing world. Nothing is good because it is old! Nothing is good because it once worked! No! No! Only that which functions is good! Only that which keeps the chaos of nature and the barbarity of man away from Fortress Pacifica is that which we must embrace!" "The Sith embrace failed traditions. The Rule of Two is a dogma, but it has led them to being nearly wiped out, as when Darth Sidious and banned member were destroyed! How can such a failed dogma continue to be embraced by a Francoist people? I see it now. Through their passion, they find comfort in dogma, but through dogma, their claims to be the heirs of Franco falls!" The remaining students, unable to counter the argument, looked at me silently in the shadows cast by the mighty parapets and booming canons of Francograd Fortress as the group walked slowly to Pacific University, still unable to shake the thought that there was more in the darthness.

You misunderstand what I do. I do not do things because I can. I can do many things, but choose not to. I do because a rational analysis of the material world indicates to me that survival demands it. To say we do because we can makes us seem very terribly whimsical. We do not decide matters of war and peace on the basis of whimsy. Perhaps the greatest mistake is to assume one's opponent are stupid or foolish. Do you think whimsy is the basis of our decisions? That we do things because we simply can? The beginning of defeating an opponent's argument is assuming that they are as wise and rational as you.

Your analysis of history strikes me very much of Strauss's analysis of Burke in Natural Law and History. I agree with it.

I am puzzled by your statements. "Memory" is material. You will die. I will die. The memories held in our heads will die. Some day too, all memories of all events will die. That is the material world. You are material. There is no God. There is no soul. There is no Platonic "idea" in some heaven somewhere. The material world is all there is.

Our differences are not ideological. All alliances strive for survival. That is the ultimate ideology, and all rational beings share it. Some alliances embrace certain so-called universal moralities that they think will help them survive. I do not begrudge them this. The New Pacific Order simply chooses not to hide behind the facade of such morality. We are here to survive, and beyond that, to thrive. Anything we do is calculated towards that. There is no universal morality, only the universal ideology of survival. As Triyun has said, at the end of the day, FAN, in its wisdom, has decided that its present course of action best ensures its survival. We, in our wisdom, have decided that our present course of action best ensures our survival. If the material reality of the world we both analyze changes, perhaps FAN or the NPO might change their decision. As Triyun said, and share I his opinion, it seems unlikely that the conditions of our material world will change, and thus our analysis will not change.

My apologies for being patronizing. I've been in these FAN arguments a long time ago, and the nostalgia kicked in. You do get it right. I will not stop fighting people who are fighting me. FAN is weak. I am strong. If I stop, FAN will grow. There is a chance, a good one, if you read above my animal intelligence recognizing patterns, they will fight me again, and there I am, fighting someone stronger than they were before. Why would I do that? FAN is weak. I am strong.

I find so many parts of this discussion ludicrous. I will state things plainly. FAN tried to destroy us. FAN presently tries to destroy us. Now let's parse some words one by one. We'll start with the first sentence. We will continue fighting them until they cease to do so. "FAN." That refers to the Federated Armed Nations. "Tried." That refers to their alliance, as a whole, knowingly having done something. "To destroy us" is that something, "us" being the New Pacific Order. Now the next sentence. "FAN" still the same as before. "Presently" means now, as in the present. Not the past, not the future, but the now. "Tries" refers to their alliance, as a whole, knowingly doing something. Now, remember, there was an adverb before "tries" and that was "presently," so keep in mind what "presently" means when considering "tries." "Destroy us" is that something again, us being the New Pacific Order. I like to think I'm a decently intelligence guy. I can recognize patterns. It's a hallmark of making us the most intelligence animal in the Kingdom. The pattern I see is that FAN sincerely wants and tries to destroy us. Them no longer wanting and trying to sincerely destroy us is a pre-condition for me to even begin not viewing them as my enemy. No talk of terms, no talk of peace, no talk of anything before that pre-condition is met, with them or any other enemy.

Not Clever. Sometimes a name speaks volume. Read the thread, and then try again. Particularly my comments re: metrics of comparison.

So, let me sum up here: Your thesis is: "NPO, do worse." Your premise is: "NPO reduces war; I want war; NPO is bad." Then you get war: "I have war; I will not fight." Seems like you just defeated your premise, comrade.

I believe GTTokAK was referring to some of Electron Sponge's actions as "epic failure" and not the alliance as a whole.

Again, I mean no offense to Gramlins. My point is simply that we're different types of alliances and it does not make sense to compare us by the same metrics.

I stand corrected, Alden Peterson. I merely brought up your membership policies to illustrate the peculiarity in using those metrics to judge our respective alliances. While I defer to you on your membership policies, the reality is still the same: Gramlins is nearly all high NS nations, and rarely (at least judging by the list of nations in your alliance on CN) admits anyone below certain thresholds.

Gramlins and the New Pacific Order, as anyone remotely familiar with either of them would know, are very different alliances in terms of what NS-level nations they permit to join. If the NPO wanted to have the most elite 118 nations we wanted, we could do that, but that's not how the New Pacific Order chooses to run its alliance.

Rubbing defeat in their face is what we do to FAN. But enough about surrender terms. You know what rocks? The NPO's tech production. That's what rocks.

I wonder what part of Morte's statement you didn't get, Blacky? At the time the Viceroyalty began, the New Pacific Order's domestic Technology Corps had buyers buying 3M for 150 tech, and at the GATO Technology Corps sold 100 tech for 3M to the NPO, with both Corps receiving the same retirement bonuses. GATO got a better deal, because the purpose of our economic relationship was not simply to get tech to the NPO, but to provide an effective and honorable means for the reconstruction of GATO nations. Although presently, the NPO has adjusted the rates for its domestic Technology Corps, the GATO rates remain the same.

So we're arguing over terms? I don't care. I gave my terms. I defined them. I feel that myself and my comrades have more than adequately addressed the questions in this thread. Take issue with our terminology if you wish. I'm not wasting breath on this argument anymore. No. Nietzsche never cared one whit about "nobility." I don't even have to quote "Beyond Good and Evil" beyond (pun intended) the title. Nietzsche wanted to move beyond those kinds of value judgments and determine the value of values. Francoism was not the first philosophy. Brush up on your history. And it's laughable to suggest that there is no conflict. No. We defined our philosophy and where its antecedents come from. You can argue about it amongst yourselves for however long you wish.

No, that's not right. What was unique about "Marxism" or "scientific socialism" as Marx and Engels called it was in fact the methodology. Whereas prior types of socialism, which they chose to call "utopian socialism," did not base their visions of society off a material analysis of reality, scientific socialism did, hence the adjective "scientific" in front of it. Francoism does not remove class conflict. There was never any class conflict on Planet Bob, and there never can be, unless Admin, praised be him, changes the material conditions of reality. Moreover, you don't understand Nietzsche at all. Nietzsche absolutely unequivocally would have supported one philosophy as more powerful than another. That is one of Nietzsche's major points that he makes in "Beyond Good and Evil," that some philosophies are stronger than another, and how strong philosophies are created by opposing strong philosophies. The entire point of Nietzche's philosophy is that he wants to create new philosophies that are more powerful (or "life-affirming" or "life-creating" as Nietzsche put it) than past philsophies. I bet Rousseau would have hated airplanes, so I bet he would hate my nation, because we have airplanes in it. Your argument doesn't quite hold water. Vladimir has more than adequately defined what "influenced" mean. You're welcome to stand all day and say: "Philosophers [X], [Y] and [Z] who influenced you would disagree with you," but that does not even begin to attempt to refute the actual scientific philosophy of Francoism, and it is this philosophy that has brought the New Pacific Order to its place today, having defeated the userite scum who occupied our ancestral waters and arriving on the red world where we now reside.

My apologies. I don't spend my entire day here, contrary to appearances. Your arguments refutes itself. The power of Marxism was that it described class relationships. You admit there are no classes. Once we're talking "weaker" and "stronger" states, any theory of power relations can "work," whereas when one admits classes, only Marxism (to Marxism) is the appropriate analysis.

My profuse apologies. The reason I didn't answer your post is that the response is self-evident. Why should I answer a post when you did not read this thread? I shall make a simple attempt again: the Marxist current in Francoism is one of methodology, not of content. Thus your comment about "bourgeois" theoreticians simply doesn't make sense. There are no bourgeois theoreticians on Planet Bob, because there is no bourgeoise. There is no class that controls the means of production. Vladimir does not omit from his analysis of Marxism that it is a tool of human liberation; in fact, that indeed is the power of Francoism: it liberates the nation from the chaos of nature and the barbarism of man. There are no "disenfranchised" groups on Planet Bob in the Marxist sense. Bob is a classless universe in the Marxist sense.

There's a little three volume work by a guy named Karl about Capitalism. I recommend you read it, for that does not a capitalist system make. You need classes. If you read Vladimir's and my posts in this thread, you would find that we take pains to point out that Francoism's Marxist antecedents lie far more in the methodology of Francoism than the content of Francoism. Francoist theorists have discussed in great depth why Francoism is a more powerful system of beliefs than any other, and I think you will find the Nietzschian current very strong in those discussions. See the link in my signature for those works. Your reading of Hobbes and Rousseau is a very unsubtle one. Yes, Rousseau believed that he has sussed out the asocial nature of man far more deeply than Hobbes ever did, but they agreed on several extremely important points of methodology, which, although seemingly simple to us in retrospect, was quite radical in their day. Specifically, they agreed that it is most important to look at man in a pre-social state to determine the most right and most best way to live, whereas the ancients thought to look at what is best in modern man. In particular, I think you will find the Rousseauian analysis not in the analysis of Bob in a pre-social state, in which one is correct to point out that it is Hobbesian, but in the analysis of the modern world where in many alliances there is no relationship between ability and the social hierarchy. I'd recommend checking out the Discourse on Inequality.

You know, I'm no defender of Stalin, but really ... there are problems with your argument. To say Stalin was a proponent of bureaucracy, particularly for Georgians is a really warped view of what Stalin cared about. Stalin was Soviet by choice, and generally eschewed any vestiges of his Georgian heritage. Again, I don't know what you mean by "corrupt," either. Stalin did things that I consider very, very, bad. Horrible things. But I wouldn't use the word "corrupt" to describe Stalin. He did not enrich himself or his family really, by his actions. I'd agree to get the gist of Communism to talk to some real Trots. Francoism really has nothing to do with National Socialism, as it has little to do with Communism. National Socialism has state-controlled capitalist syndicates. Do you see those in the NPO? I've read Animal Farm and Orwell's other major works. I don't see the parallel other "ism."

I don't know what "video game" you are speaking of. I am discussing the scientific philosophy of my alliance.

But you're "emo" now! *chuckles* How can you have authority?