Jump to content

Vladimir

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,862

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Vladimir

  1. Vladimir
    This article is best read while listening to this
    .La Vangardia Pacifica would like to thank regular readers for their patience during its prolonged hiatus, and can now confirm that production will resume in the near future. By way of apology for the unexpected interruption we we would like to offer readers a free copy of the December 2008 publication Letters of Pacifica.
    Within its cover readers will find the foundation of many of the intellectual and historical ideas that informed the Order during the early years of its existence. Some of these may be outdated while others may not be, but it will undoubtedly provide a wealth of information and a unique perspective to younger and older scholars alike.
    In line with this we are pleased to observe that the models developed through the Francoist method in previous issues of this paper have more than survived the test of time. What were once much maligned predictions -- the inevitability of the treaty web, of the bipolarity of international politics, of the existential crisis, etc -- have become, to contemporary society, a matter of historical fact.
    And finally, we would like to pay tribute to Emperors Cortath, Mary, Brehon, Farrin and Letum for the extraordinary job they have done over the past few years. Not only have they maintained the Order in the face of extraordinary odds, but they've reorganised, rebuilt and reinvented it into the powerful, efficient machine that it is today. They have proven that Pacifica Prevails was not only a popular saying of old, but a statement of fact.
  2. Vladimir
    This article is best read while listening to
    .The world of practical men often has occasion to laugh and mock the theorists and theories that seek to explain their domain. "What is the point of it all" they scoff. Why question such basic causes, connections, goods, evils and truths when they’re so obvious to me? They sit smugly, surrounded comfortingly by their common sense, attempting with the last of their strength to live in an independent, practical 'world of the real'. And in each moment they fail to recognise that every action they witness and every truth they know is nothing but the lingering imprint of some dead and defunct theoretician.
    One practical man looks at a war and sees a battle between alliances, another sees a battle between moralities, yet another a battle between cultures, and another still a battle between classes. Each is quite certain in his own unique truth, reacting to it in his own unique way as a result. And so the theory that he mocked as purposeless just moments before quietly welcomes him into its fold. Slowly the practical man must come to the realisation that far from being the master of his domain, he is but a slave of the theorist's.
    It can be seen therefore that every man, no matter how practical or introspective he may be, is operating based on the hidden assumptions, truths and demands of an underlying theory: the only difference is how much he realises it and thus how much control he has over his own actions. If the man fails to realise the reality of the structures, powers and influences around him, then no matter how revolutionary he considers himself, no matter how inspiring his voice sounds to his own ears, he is doomed to exist as just one data-point in millions as he perpetuates the hidden hand that controls him.
    We can see these practical men in every gutter and every office around us, working away diligently and thinking themselves accomplished. We saw it in the downfall of the Continuum, as so many practical men came out of the woodwork to proclaim a new world on the basis of... of what? A desire to see it? Like so many before them they were blind to the realities of power and structure. They had failed to investigate, to analyse, to theorise, and so they found themselves duped by the one-eyed king who knew how to use the structures and sought only to crown himself atop of them. The great self-proclaimed ‘revolutionaries’ of an age were buried to the eulogy of useful idiots, renewing that which they were revolting against, left as neither destroyers nor creators, forgotten to the pages of dust and mould.
    It is the folly of the celebrated great men in every epoch -- preachers of death, revolutionaries and kings alike. If you cannot see the realities of power and structure, if you are blinded by the golden robes of its momentary occupants, then you cannot rise to truly control, destroy or create anything. You are forever a slave and never a master. And as the defunct theory that serves as the foundation of your 'practical' action is undermined and destroyed by contraduction, the destructive life-denying force of nihilism begins to take hold and destroy you along with it.
  3. Vladimir

    War and Consequence

    By Vladimir,

    This article is best read while listening to
    .To regular readers of La Vanguardia Pacifica the recent attacks on the New Pacific Order will come as no surprise. The modern hegemony has tried for two years to force a pseudo-legitimate reason to attack the Order, and after two years of abject failure they have now given up all pretence and attacked for the explicit reason, as noted in their imaginatively titled "everything must die" declaration, of killing what they see as a potential rival (simultaneously making a mockery of everything they said about us and themselves during that time period). But similarly, neither would a regular reader have been surprised by the manufactured war declared against the New Polar Order a few days ago, as Emperor Random Interrupt brought Polaris out of its slump. What we see here, therefore, is little more than pre-emptive strikes on potential political opposition before it can ever actually become political opposition. And this leaves us with some extremely worrying conclusions to draw.
    The first conclusion is in what exactly has happened -- the attacks on potential political opposition. While some have tried to make the divine claim to war being 'interesting' or 'exciting', in doing so they fail to see beyond their own noses -- or, in this case, a couple of weeks. This war, if the aggressors emerge victorious, will paradoxically usher in an era where a single entity commands unchallenged and unchallengeable political domination; a situation which can only lead to widespread stagnation, strangling the political lifeblood that sustains our world.
    But it is this tied with the second conclusion -- the way the attacks occurred -- that should create real concern within any free-thinking Bobian denizen. The real power of a political hegemony is to set political precedent. Unfortunately the precedent here is to tear down all rule of law and security for non-hegemonic alliances. Whereas in previous eras an alliance could consider itself relatively safe from attack so long as it did not commit a militarily aggressive act, even if it was in political disagreement with the hegemonic power, the precedent being set today means that anyone saying anything deemed to be slightly out of line, or not even doing that, could be destroyed on a whim. Gone would be the days of delicate political manoeuvre and intrigue, entering would be the tedious grind of apolitical absolutism. No longer could you argue a justification for war, or organise a counter-weight to the powerful, for everything outside of the smallest of political cliques would be deemed sport for the entitled few, and no justification would care enough to go beyond 'because we can'.
    So this is not a rejuvenation of Planet Bob, far from it: if the Mushroom Kingdom et al emerge victorious then it is Bob's death rattle. The politics that drew nations here in the tens of thousands would be dead, the frequent challenges to power would cease to be, and what little remained would wither and die. It is no longer an intriguing fight for the power of one alliance over another as we have seen in previous great wars, but rather it is a fight for the survival of us all. In this way the Mushroom Kingdom et al are fighting not only for the death of the New Pacific Order, but for the deaths of themselves and every other alliance regardless of political affiliation.
    Consequently this war cannot be seen as being one alliance against another, but rather it must be seen as a war between those who want to survive, and those who do not: those who want Planet Bob to go on for years to come, and those who want it to end. If you think that you can avoid this war or its consequences, you are wrong. If you aren't ready to stand up and fight then you are already dead.
  4. Vladimir
    For this most auspicious anniversary of the establishment of the Order


    Written by Comrade Letum.
    When Comrade Francos Spain proclaimed the founding of the New Pacific Order on September 1st, 2003, he held no “little red book” to instruct his fellow revolutionaries on how to embrace his vision of a brand new world. Instead, he led by example, institutionalizing many of the practices he had developed since the start of the August Revolution five days earlier.
    Always a man of the people, Franco's actions established a radical and earth-shattering new order, and the personality of this single individual had a tremendous influence on the group of Pacificans which were drawn to his light. Today, seven years later, his example still shines, having provided the impetus for the formal codification of his practices into our Francoist Ideology and his spirit lives on in the burning fire of revolution that lies in the heart of each Pacifican.
    Comrade Franco created a true meritocracy.
    The Status-Quo
    But that mere word is insufficient to fully explain the unprecedented nature of the Pacifican revolution. After all, every system will ostensibly claim to be ruled by those with “merit”. To truly see how Franco's revolution differed from the illusions of inevitable failures in other governments, we need to first see the jarring contrast from the regime he fought in those bloody August days.
    Thedoc's regime was corrupt and exploitative. These simple words capture the essence of the most common abuse of false self-proclaimed meritocratic societies. Invariably, an individual or group of some skill will elevate themselves to leadership based on their “merit”, but once they have gained that power, they will do everything possible to entrench themselves and head off any challenges.
    “Elites” such as the pre-revolutionary regime therefore focus on creating a system that promotes their own interests rather than fostering the skills of those under them. Elaborate oligarchic systems will often be developed to support this status-quo and incompetent yes-men are rationalized as “sharing the vision” of the leader, and thus being able to provide synergy to the team. Such thin veneers of lies are elaborately constructed to cover a corrupt system of groupthink.
    By using “rule by the best” as an excuse to legitimize the status-quo, elitist governments promote social stratification and stagnation.
    A Meritocratic Order
    But Comrade Franco challenged that status quo, and continued to challenge it even after assuming power. In his spirit, a true Francoist society always retains a focus on eternal revolution and constant reinvention, allowing for the meritocratic fire to burn constantly rather than fizzle out. This, in turn, strengthens the adaptability and endurance of a modern state.
    By embracing this concept of eternal conflict, by retaining its identity as a revolutionary Order, the New Pacific Order can thus build a Meritocracy of practice rather than words. That is not always something easy to do, as humans, in their state of nature, are often prone to greed and defending their interests. To let its meritocratic ideal survive over generations, Francoism will thus seek to lift each nation from this chaotic state of nature and bring them to a state of Order.
    This, Comrade Franco would accomplish by his actions – the very actions that have now been codified into our philosophy. He was humble and sought no titles other than “Comrade” or “Delegate”, seeking input from all Pacificans, no matter their rank for his policies. This created the principle of “no man is above the order” that stands in stark contrast to Thedoc's regime and other counter-revolutionary governments that seek to set themselves apart from their people via a policy of stratification and entrenchment. Thus, Franco created the system that we now know as the Autocratic Democracy of the order – a system which retains the rigid authority and hierarchy that a military order requires, yet manages to be a government for the people, by allowing participatory decision-making as in Franco's example, and by being an entirely voluntary institution.
    Indeed, such was the strength of the new system, that many of those opposed to it and those who tried to unseat it were inevitably sucked into it. Much of the second generation of leaders that succeeded Franco's initial revolutionary cadre were former opponents of the Pacific ideal, and the trend of converted rivals finding their true self in the halls of the Order is one that has persisted onto this very day. The sheer amount of individuals who initially opposed the Francoist ideal but eventually came to serve it is staggering, and a testament to the ability of Pacifica to develop those nations to their fullest potential, both materially and spiritually.
    The Creation of the Pacifican Identity
    But such endless struggle, both against counter-revolutionary forces and against stagnation, is not an easy thing, and it has had a tremendous influence on our Identity. The Revolution was a fire of creation, and it has taught us to live in fire ever since. It is key to our evolution as a rigidly military order – one ready to fight at a moment's notice – but also to our cohesion and brotherhood. Our shared burden and shared vision has created a community so tightly wound together that it can be mind-boggling to outsiders who cannot understand the self-sacrificing utilitarianism that characterises the spirit of our members. Pacificans truly embody the ideal of asking what they can do for the order, rather than what the order can do for them, and will give their for the Order and for their Comrades. To this very day, no man is left behind in the order, a principle which this author experienced in his very first day within Pacifica's embrace, when the Order vociferously defended his temporary senate seat on another team against external interests, despite the lack of political advantage (and the mistrust that shared history must have created).
    It is in part this shared spirit, the spirit we inherited from the August revolution, that we are able to rise above the state of nature where greed and corruption stifle any attempt at a meritocracy. And it is also in part due to the denial of these baser instincts that we are are able confront a unique challenge that has faced the meritocracy construct of the order since the very first day of revolution, that of an over-abundance of talent and forceful personalities.
    If a meritocracy exists to promote talent, then how would it function if all higher-level positions were already occupied with people of exceptional merit? It is no secret that much of the upper and middle ranks of the order display leadership skills far in excess of the very top brass of inferior alliances, consequently making competition for places much greater.
    In this too, we have learned much from the practices developed in the revolution by Comrade Franco, who ruled with his people at heart. Franco's Spain created an extensive bureaucracy, but was always sensitive to the need for equality amongst positions and the prevention of abuse; and indeed, being an innately humble man, would not hold his own position over that of the Pacificans he interacted with. He therefore succeeded in making merit not be dependent on power, which also had the happy effect of dodging the bullet of inadvertently encouraging the sort power-mongering behaviour often visible in counter-francoist forces.
    And though power is indeed wielded by the best in the Order, it does not act as a reward. Instead, the Order seeks to incentivise meritorious behaviour, not just by promotions, but also by systems of internal rewards as well as praise and public recognition. Such positive reinforcement always follows in the footsteps of Comrade Franco himself, who was always careful to give praise and credit where it was due.
    Seven Years On
    It is this system – authoritative and participatory, disciplined and revolutionary, cohesive and meritocratic, that saw its birth 7 years ago. While few of those who saw the light of revolution still abound, the unbroken cultural inheritance defines us to this very day. This is an important day for the Order, and no man in the world can claim to have done what Franco's Spain did in 2003.
    And now, after all these years, the Order still stands as an endless revolution against chaos and disorder. We stand a bit over a year after the Armageddon War. We stand 3 months after the end of the most destructive peace in history. Despite all odds, even today, the Order's call of Peace, Strength and Prosperity rings true.
    We have more infrastructure per nation than ever before. Our levels of technology per nation have recovered to pre-Karma levels. We have an absolute dominance in military wonders amongst alliances – particularly in MP's and SDI's, with Polaris and MK serving only as distant competitors. We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world – larger than ever before.
    Today, 7 years on, the New Pacific Order is still adapting. Still growing stronger. Still leading the charge of a revolution.
    Long Live the New Pacific Order!
  5. Vladimir

    In Search of Politics

    By Vladimir,

    This article is best read while listening to the Karma activist's new anthem.
    Selling the Status Quo
    "It's better than another treaty announcement thread." So goes out the call of Karma's epigones, characteristically blind to the fact that, far from highlighting the positive aspects of their thread, they condemn the entire state of world politics that they have constructed. So slow, so mundane, so controlled have things become that we are expected to drop on all fours and lick up the crumbs benevolently thrown our way, thanking them for constructing a system where this can genuinely be portrayed as the best we could ever hope for. But only in the most short-sighted and brow-beaten individual, an individual who has become so psychologically dependent on the existing structure of power that they cannot even imagine the slightest systemic change, only they could hold such an excuse in anything but the highest disdain.
    Our degeneration to this point has become abundantly clear over the past few weeks, as the Mushroom Kingdom carelessly thrashes about in a vain attempt to live up to their former reputation as an 'unconventional' and 'fun' alliance, rather than a status quo power incapable of anything beyond perpetuating what already is. Unfortunately for them their thrashing about only betrays their complete misunderstanding what politics actually is -- the struggle for power. With the global structure ossified to the extent that it is seen as somehow natural they instead begin to tinker around the margins, deeming that doing anything, no matter how contrived or irrelevant, must make them appear once more as the exciting alliance shaking things up.
    As a result we see them more and more targeting peripheral alliances of minor political importance. They will threaten NSO and express bewilderment when people roll their eyes, then attempt to deflect attention onto the 'evil' NPO and be shocked by a response of yawns and slow head-shakes. But even were they to attack NSO or NPO, what would change on the political scene? They are not challenging a centre of political power, nor risking any of their own in the process. These moves can never be more than an attempt at bread and circuses to the disenfranchised masses, and thus while they are doing something, they are not really doing anything.
    Grasping at Air
    This is the mistake that we see so many of the big players make today. Their minds continue to exist in a past where there is MK's side and a competing 'other'. As a result they continue to see the political interplay as being between the strength of their side and a revisionist power that they can attack and engage in political games with.
    The concern begins to develop when they realise that despite all their fighting they are left feeling empty, the contentment they remembered from days long past and sought to recapture evading them as grasp and catch only air. The simple explanation for this is that there is no 'other' in any meaningful sense of the word. There is no potential political or military challenge, and thus any attack on perceived others means nothing -- there is no political risk and no political victory, only a continuing emptiness as the the form of politics goes through the motions without any of the substance. The only possible outcome from this shadow of what was once politics can be a feeling of 'what has any of this actually meant?'
    And so the search for politics continues in vain, as those capable of creating it continue to box at shadows, either too blind or too fearful to challenge any of the real pillars of power -- to risk a loss and chase a meaningful win. And this is where we sit, in an apolitical abyss strangled free of oxygen while we bow down in thanks for the poisonous carbon monoxide provided in its place. It's better than boring old carbon dioxide, after all.
  6. Vladimir
    This article is best read while listening to Rico.
    Discussion on the great existential threat has picked up again since I last wrote on it, but only amongst the chattering classes of the OWF. Alliances which had once shown such concern over our world's future continue to ignore the issue despite rapidly accelerating decline. Moreover, they have conducted a u-turn on the causes and remedies they had once championed by denying the responsibility of powerful alliances. They won't conduct the open diplomacy they once called for, or shift their policies to create the dynamic multi-polar world so many died for.
    An honest change in intellectual direction, I'm sure. Though one can't help but notice that these changes of direction all seem to have coincided exactly with the powerless becoming the powerful. Of course, once cannot expect the powerful to act in ways opposed to their immediate interests, which is why it was easy to predict the continuation of secret diplomacy, curb-stomps, harsh terms and uni-polarity. It's just a shame when these immediate interests lead to the destruction of the entire world in the post-immediate-term. The oceans are rising.
  7. Vladimir
    The recent discussion on Francoism and communism sent my mind back to early 2007, when one EuroSoviets wrote an analysis of Planet Bob from a Marxist perspective. Of course, this was aimed squarely at the then would-be communist alliances, which based themselves on a (often a downright reactionary) utopian idealism that grated on the nerves of a number of leftward-inclined Pacificans. But in going back over his essay today it is striking how similar it is to modern Francoism, despite being written a full 7 months before The Meaning of Freedom.
    In flicking back through I realised how much of his insight I had missed in my original reading at the time, and from this there is the interesting implication that two independent individuals could reach effectively the same conclusions on such issues independently of one another.
    It is therefore an important essay to read not just on the history of Francoism, but also on political theory as a whole. But I'd be lying if I tried to claim that it was an easy read -- the best things in life are rarely free. Filled with Marxist concepts, and even a quotation from Das Kapital, it's heavy going and often difficult to fully comprehend. I will therefore quote the essay in full before going on to break down the important sections.
    The first thing that one notices of course, is the form that it takes in being a full-on and unapologetic Marxist analysis. For our purposes here we have to look through this to the essence of the piece, picking out the important arguments and laying them bare.
    EuroSoviets opened his work with what was then a bold assertion to the left alliances: "there is no grand international proletariat." This was important not just in the political implications that it had, but also in that it indicated EuroSoviets' materialist method. Far from taking 'classes' from another reality and assuming their existence in ours, he looked at our reality and saw that they didn't exist; that Planet Bob was classless. Both the method and the conclusion are, of course, central premises of Francoism.
    His main point in this first section was summed up at the end: "the greatest socialist alliance will be the one that breaks down to the greatest extent possible barriers between nations and maximizes co-operation in production" Once again we can immediately recognise the Francoist position here. In seeing the barriers inherent between nations EuroSoviets immediately moved that the optimum outcome was to minimise these barriers as far as possible and maximise cooperation. This is, of course, his way of describing the Francoist state of nature and the necessity of removing nations from the chaos of that follows from it, with the greatest alliance being that which most reduces conflict and thus increases cooperation.
    This previous point and its link to Francoism is emphasised shortly afterwards when he states "There exists a perfect anarchy (in terms of international relations). Nations are forced to co-operate for the purposes of mutual security." Here we find the state of nature laid out explicitly, along with the self-interest that drives the formation of alliances.
    This next quote will be one of length, for it is the first attempt to develop the Paradox of Freedom and the Freedom of Potential: "Consider the use of NPO banks to be like leisure time in a socialist utopia. If one wishes to learn, one learns. Because one develops new abilities as a result of this learning, one contributes these abilities to society, in the best form possible, as determined by that society. So, one borrows what one needs, improves oneself and as a result of increased capacity, repays, having benefited immensely from these socialized repositories." There isn't much that needs to be said to explain this, but we can recognise first of all that having done away with conflict through cooperation, EuroSoviets' has moved on to discuss what a free nation would do. Work and leisure time have merged together and nations begin to pursue their potential in whatever field they desire, thus improving themselves and the alliance. Or in other words: they are free to pursue their potential.
    He then enters on a discourse of democracy, a full year and a half before I or anyone else had subjected it to their own full analyses. Moreover, in the course of this discourse he put forward the basic outline of Autocratic Democracy: "the true embodiment of [democracy] was armed Paris. [...] The point that Marx herein makes is that there are higher expressions of democratic sentiment than mere votes. [...] Votes are a mere shadow of democracy; other alliances can keep their shadows. We prefer the real thing." It is such quotations that must make one wonder why this essay has been lost to history for so long! He puts forth the idea that votes aren't democracy, they are merely an inadequate middle-man -- a shadow -- that acts more often to exclude the population than include it: the people themselves are the true democracy.
    And so, after cutting through the difficult flesh of the essay and going directly to the bone, we find within it an early conceptualisations that later became central to Francoist analysis: the state of nature, the paradox of freedom, the freedom of potential and autocratic democracy. One can but tip his hat to this great forerunner of modern Francoist thought, whose under-appreciated contribution outlined so much that we now take for granted.
  8. Vladimir
    With the end of the NSO curb-stomp we have seen the return of the 'beer review' surrender term -- a constant in the New Hegemony's arsenal which has hitherto slipped under the radar of political scrutiny. So why is it there? What is its function?
    The first response to these questions is that the beer review is 'just a bit of fun', and indeed, this is precisely what it's meant to portray. It allows a group to spend two weeks curb-stomping an alliance down to one third of its previous strength for no justifiable reason, only to leave the sickly-sweet scent of 'a bit of fun' in the nostrils of observers. These observers, of course, quickly forget the two week long curb-stomp and are left with the impression that the attack wasn't so bad after all -- and then what's left but to curse the victim if they dare to complain about the whole series of events.
    In this manner it is a clever strategy, used to cover up the political realities of the attack. That is, the reality that a whole alliance and over one hundred and fifty individual nations will now have to spend months or perhaps even years rebuilding the wanton destruction that was wrought upon them without cause. The reality that the power structure holds such severe inequities that it allowed, with gusto, a dozen heavily backed alliances to descend against a single competitor. The reality that the attack was so blatant in its character as a hegemonic power-play that even members of the attacking alliances had to struggle to justify it on those grounds, contrary to the stated casus belli.
    But there is a second, darker reason for the beer review -- to degrade the defeated alliance. It is of little surprise that this particular weapon has been utilised against a community like the NSO, which takes a serious, proud and independent approach to politics. Degradation is not something which exists in the abstract, but rather it is something which is relative to the sensibilities of the individual, and so in order to degrade someone you seek an antithetical activity and force them to act upon it by threat of force. In this process you remove their independence and dignity for all the world to see, demonstrating your strength and their weakness -- and in this case their cultural inferiority as they are forced to bow to the culture of the dominant power. All that the defeated alliance can offer as means of a defence to this degradation is the public acceptance that this was indeed 'fun', therefore perpetuating the initial point of the exorcize
    The beer review thus has an important dual role in maintaining the current power structure, both by coating its blows in a velvet glove, and by weakening the mental strength and identity of its enemies. At the flip of a switch it changes the popular discourse from one of wanton destruction to one of good natured tomfoolery, where the victim should be thanking and in debt to the aggressor. And at the flip of a switch it turns military defiance into cultural and personal subjection. Far from being 'a bit of fun', it should be seen for what it is: a powerful weapon in the toolbox of imperialism.
  9. Vladimir
    The question of the great war is upon us once again, this time asking where the next one will come from. As one would expect, there have been a multitude of responses covering nigh every alliance in the known world, while others fall into despair that we may have reached the end of history for the foreseeable future. But no one has yet dared to transcend the superficial examination of alliance relations and enter a scientific analysis of the great war concept itself.
    As has been noted previously, a great war is essentially the climax of a revolutionary movement in the process of attempting to overthrow the hegemonic bloc -- that is, the bloc which maintains its place atop the unipolar world. Thus, the coaluetion toppled the NPO, the Initiative toppled the coeluetion, the Unjust Pact attempted to topple the Initiative and was itself toppled by what became the Continuum, Karma toppled the Continuum, and finally C&G toppled Karma. At the most basic level what we can take from this is what has been implicit within most responses: the next great war will be a challenge against the hegemony of C&G/SF.
    However, more pertinent to the question is precisely how these great wars came about, and in this we find an interesting consistency: the hegemony invariably enters a civil war. Thus, the NPO fell due to its long-term backers, GATO and Legion, aligning against it; similarly, the Initiative fell due to a challenge by elements within it; the Continuum came to an end as a result of several alliances going over to the other side; and finally, Karma met its demise as it broke into its warring component parts. Indeed, the only great war that wasn't broadly brought about by defection was the second great war between the Initiative and the League, and this can be explained by the extraordinary circumstances of several new and large alliances developing simultaneously in that period and destabilising the power structure -- something that would be impossible today.
    To understand this we must first understand how the unipolar world works. It is invariably defined by a hegemonic bloc that controls international politics -- in our case this bloc is the aforementioned C&G and its sidekick, SF. This control derives in part from raw strength, but primarily from the bloc's central position in the treaty web, which spreads its influence to almost all significant alliances.
    The way in which this works is perfectly demonstrated by Lord Sharpe's 'BlocNet' (the image at the top of this article), designed at the height of the Continuum's power. In BlocNet we can see that the ruling bloc was largely defined as being made up of the ruling alliances from the various corners of the world, each hugely influential within its own sphere. This parochial influence was then used to create the global influence of the Continuum, which in turn fed back and conferred global influence on the parochial ruler.
    This is broadly the social structure of a unipolar world, and through it we can see a clearly defined hierarchy made up of three categories of alliance:
    At the top there are the Core alliances, capable of bending the world to their will by virtue of their place atop the semi-periphery -- there is usually only room for one such alliance (eg. GOONS in the Unjust Pact; NPO in Continuum; MK in C&G). This isn't to say they aren't constrained -- they must keep the semi-periphery on-side -- but they are constrained in a different way from others, enjoying an infinitely greater degree of freedom.
    The semi-peripheral alliances are those that hold considerable power to bend the world to their will, but are also constrained themselves by the core alliance and other semi-peripheral alliances, each pushing their different agendas. This category is mostly made up of the non-core alliances within the ruling bloc.
    The peripheral alliances are the great mass of alliances lower down, usually tied to the semi-periphery and core through a system of protectorates, treaties and blocs.
    However, as the above would imply, within every social structure there are contradictions. The core maintains its position so long as they maintain control over the vast bulk of the semi-periphery, while the the semi-periphery has a constant pressure to advance its own interests at the expense of the core (and itself -- the other semi-peripheral alliances). The result of this is a constant, if often blunt, tension, leading to a constant strain on the core alliance as it battles to simultaneously maintain peace within the semi-periphery, the respectability of the bloc, its own authority, and the pursuit of its own unique agenda. With a skilled core this situation can carry on peacefully for prolonged periods, but in the long run it is unsustainable, and the longer the period carries on the more the dual motivators of grievance and ambition begin to build up.
    We can therefore begin to understand why the great wars have primarily come from within the hegemonic bloc itself. The hegemonic bloc doesn't rule by virtue of its own power, but rather by virtue of the power of its constituent parts (ie. the ability of the semi-periphery to pull significant sections of the world with them) that is then invested in the core. While an uprising of independent peripheral alliances is nearly impossible due to the numbers required, the likelihood of the uprising being quashed prematurely, and the interfering influence of core and semi-peripheral alliances, it is that semi-peripheral influence that has the authority to shift large chunks of the world at once, altering the very terrain upon which we stand.
    We can sum up therefore by saying that all blocs, and indeed, the entire world system, is nothing more than a social construct that exists only insofar as it is perceived as advancing the personal interests of each of its members. The hierarchy inherent to any hegemonic bloc makes it vulnerable to a rapid change in this perception, as the core pushes its own agenda while acting as a mediator for the other major players, in the process holding back and alienating those who inevitably lose out.
    The conclusion to this structural analysis isn't, unfortunately, anything so simplistic as an alliance's name. However, it can tell you where to look. If we are to have another great war, the build up and spark for it can only come from within C&G and SF themselves. The only question is: when will the second tier alliances get tired of being the supporting caste and decide to take their destiny into their own hands.
  10. Vladimir

    Pity the Victors

    By Vladimir,

    With the ongoing curbstomp of NSO, many questions are no doubt whizzing through the minds of regular La Vanguardia Pacifica readers. Why is Vladimir always right? When will Bob Janova concede the victory of materialist analysis and become a Francoist? And I'm sure there are probably others too.
    This is a particularly interesting turn of events for two reasons: first, because curbstomps were so loudly condemned throughout Karma as the personification of the old decadent order, and secondly because so many people have attacked the idea that the new powers are essentially the same as the old on the basis that 'at least there haven't been any curbstomps' (debatable to start with, demonstrable nonsense now).
    'But this curbstomp was justified!' come the cries of the New Hegemony. We must first say plainly that despite the misdirection poured on top of it this is in fact an alliance-scale war (potentially a global-scale war) over $6 million in aid to a nation. Moreover, it is a war that was rushed into operation 6 full hours before update without even attempting a diplomatic solution -- that is to say, without ever talking to the leaders of the NSO despite ample opportunity. This is extraordinary since these issues arise all the time in alliance affairs and are resolved peacefully, and indeed, alliances engaging in this attack have done exactly the same with nations going rogue on the NPO and ithers in the past. All that is to say: if this were a legitimate justification for war then we'd be having one every week. It is unquestionably a fabrication.
    But while ostensibly important given the current debate, this is all besides the point. When Karma was busy condemning curbstomps and justifying the great war as a way of removing them from the world, they were not condemning the content of the (often watertight) justifications used, rather they were condemning the form that the attack took -- that is, they were condemning the very concept of the curbstomp. It is not difficult to see why, since it sums up so well in a single action the power relations of the world -- the overwhelming strength of one group against the complete impotence of another.
    Never has this been so clear as today since this is not a normal curbstomp, but rather, as many people have already pointed out, it is meant as a provocation -- a means to the removal of all of the potential competition, no matter how weak and disjointed. This much is clear from the needless nature of the curbstomp and the needless nature of the tactics pursued. Why bring half the world to fight against an already wounded NSO, and, more importantly, why have the other half of the world sitting on standby "if [RoK] needs us" (why would they be needed?).
    Moreover, the not-so-subtle glimmer in the eyes of the attackers as they attempt to bait their other targets into war gives their hopes away somewhat: "Well, good stuff, but if your allies were actually your friends, they'd activate their treaties anyways, so I'll be intrigued to see what happens." This has been taken to such an extreme that several statesmen have begun to question the fact that discussion seems to revolve more around NSO's allies than NSO themselves.
    And all this following directly on the heels of the 'Red Raiding Safari', which was a rather explicit (if silly) attempt to force the NPO into war.
    It is simple enough to see that this is the logical conclusion of the old 'ex-Hegemony' theory -- the idea that there is some sort of cohesive enemy out there for the New Hegemony to fight against. Over the past month this theory has been falling increasingly out of favour as various members of the New Hegemony realise the pointlessness of it -- there is no-one to propagate against, and the more likely outcome is to see alliances treaty with the less vocal New Hegemony alliances. As such we are witnessing a last throw of the dice, as the New Hegemony attempts to salvage their raison d'etre by creating their enemy on the battlefield. But ultimately this is not a show of strength, but rather one of weakness. It is a sign that the New Hegemony is little more than a hollow husk. An entity with no positive vision, no sense of self, condemned to to try and relive past glories by beating up the corpses of long-since deceased enemies.
    The New Hegemony has thus betrayed two things about itself today, and neither one is cause for envy.
  11. Vladimir
    This article is best read while listening to the modern hegemony's
    .In explaining why GOD, Kronos and others felt it necessary to pretend that they were declaring war on a weaker alliance, GOD's leader, Xiphosis, suggested that he was conducting a social experiment. While the discovery -- that an alliance threatened with war will probably prepare for war -- wasn't overly surprising to those of with more than a week's worth of political experience or two brain cells to rub together, there were far more profound and unintended conclusions drawn from this 'fun' experiment.
    Ultimately what it served to highlight was how monotonous normal life under the new regime has become. This was brought about by the contrast of sudden activity with the lack of it once the world returned to normal -- one can live in poverty while one remains unaware of the riches down the road; it is only contrast with the latter that demands recognition of the former.
    Thus, what comes out of this experiment is not a statement on how fun and powerful and popular Xiphosis is, but rather a statement on the power-relations of our day -- a realisation of the stifling superstructure erected by the ruling alliances, and an intensifying of the reality that any alliance at any time could be destroyed by this ruling elite without cause.
    This once again must be contrast against the aspirations of Karma, with its underlying narrative of making the world a more exciting and free-flowing place. The lesson to be taken from the Xiphosis Experiment, therefore, is the reaffirmation of the victory of an enhanced unipolarity, where there is no competition: only the powerful -- playing whimsical games and jokes on an international scale -- and the powerless -- sitting with their heads down, hoping not to end up a victim.
  12. Vladimir
    Over the past few weeks a number of alliances within the New Hegemony have become increasingly self-aware and confident, believing that they can act with impunity thanks to the power-base sitting under them. The result has been an undeniable and boisterous break with many of the alliances that raised them into that position to begin with, as they explicitly contradict and even mock the beliefs they used to propagate. Every political break coincides with an equally fierce intellectual break, and this case is no different, as the question of morality in global politics is once again propelled into the spotlight. On one side of this debate we have GOONS, \m/ and the Mushroom Kingdom, among others, (hereafter referred to as Unjust Path 2.0) arguing that morality has no place in the world, while on the other we have those arguing that our activities should be considered through a moral lens as well as one of immediate self-interest. It is through this intellectual debate that Unjust Path 2.0 has demonstrated its lack of political understanding.
    The position of Unjust Path 2.0 is well summed up by GOONS member Alonois, who asserts that "People TALK of morality. They do not ACT upon it." One is tempted to suggest that this is at least superficially true -- after all, nobody has stepped up to end the Red Safari. However, one is only so tempted because moral activity is so ingrained in all of us that it is taken for granted. We can thus take a simple example: the question of war. There has never [or if there has, extraordinarily rarely] been a significant war without a casus belli, strong or weak, and this is precisely because it is known that if one doesn't have a casus belli there will be serious political consequences, ranging from a severe loss of political capital to a declaration of war in defence of the attacked alliance. Moreover, if a casus belli is to be accepted then it must be accepted as having a moral legitimacy by the significant alliances of the world, and this is the very basis of debates on what constitutes a strong and what constitutes a weak casus belli -- one cannot get away with a casus belli over the colour of an enemy's hair, for example, precisely because such a reason has no moral legitimacy. We can go beyond this and question the moral consequences of everything from OOC attacks, to spying, to perma-ZI lists, to honouring treaties, to diplomatic norms and beyond. It is this plethora of social norms and rules that makes up the moral fabric of our world, usually without us even realising it.
    It must be understood, however, that all these moral norms and rules are social constructs -- they do not exist in the abstract, but rather because they are supported (actively or passively) in the international arena by enough power that violating them becomes politically unwise. Given this, the consequences for violating the world's moral fabric, if you cannot convince the world of your case, goes beyond whether or not there is an immediate military reaction and into the far deeper questions of political support -- for this too is nothing more than a social construct.
    Alliances enter into treaties and blocs because they see these things as representing their interests, and their interests in turn are merely a representation of their view of the ideal world -- whether military dictatorship or free-thinking utopia -- and their view of the ideal world is in turn merely an extension of their internal culture and morality. Thus, a violation of widely held moral concerns may not bring about immediate military repercussions, but it will nevertheless undermine the idea that alliance interests are advanced through affiliation to the violators, and thus significantly weaken the political ties that act to prevent military repercussions.
    In the long run it is this process that leads to the hollowing out of hegemonies and ultimately to great wars. Alliances begin to view their interests as being in contradiction to the standing hegemony, and consequently seek out new vehicles and movements -- a new serious of treaties and blocs -- to advance themselves through. It was ignorance of this fact that led to the rapid destruction of the first Unjust Path and in part to the downfall of the Continuum. While Unjust Path 2.0 may be on much more stable ground at the moment, if they choose to believe that morality has no place in the world, and that talk is cheap, then they will quickly find themselves headed for a Wile E Coyote moment, where the political support that they depend on no longer supports the weight of their actions.
  13. Vladimir
    The world has split into two camps over terms, one supporting harsh terms for the defeated alliances and one opposing them. But both groups are brought back together (for the most part) under the idea that after this war there will no longer be harsh terms. This brings us to an odd situation, where those morally opposed to something are perpetrating it ostensibly in order to oppose it. But where does this lead us?
    The most fascinating thing to watch from my perspective has not been the change in ends -- the terms themselves -- but the change in means; that is to say, in the justifications being used, as 'no draconian terms' became 'the word draconian is relative' (read: the word draconian is undefinable and thus doesn't exist -- nothing is draconian), because it is these, not the terms themselves, that tell us the mindset of those offering them, and that set the precedents.
    The vast majority of justifications we see today are notable for their generality -- that is to say, for the way in which their logic applies far beyond the current war. In this category we can see examples such as 'the victors dictate the terms, not the losers' and 'we must make sure that they can no longer be a threat'. What the former amounts to is that negotiations shouldn't exist, and that the losing alliance should be willing to accept anything given to it without complaint; what the latter amounts to is a decree that terms in general should be designed to remove any potential future threat by removing their physical ability to ever be one. Of these the latter is the most interesting, for what war isn't fought over a perceived threat?
    This brings us nicely to the next justification, that harsh terms are only being offered because the NPO (and Echelon, heh) are evil and deserve it. This makes our current situation out to be unique, but is it? In what Great War has the enemy not been made out to be a great evil threat? Even in the 'War of the Coalition' Gramlins, TOP and pals were making the NpO out to be an evil alliance and an immediate threat to their existence that must be crushed and prevented from rebuilding as long as possible. Likewise we go back to the Unjust War and we find the same thing -- the defeated alliances being portrayed as a great evil. And further back we find similar in the previous Great Wars, from all sides. The point here being that alliances don't fight because they think the other to be full of splendid chaps, but because they perceive them to be a great threat and thus evil, with a history of oppression. Not to mention that there is always a concern that a defeated alliance (and especially a massive and well organised defeated bloc) will return for revenge. Of course, from one perspective or another the accusation sounds absurd (just as the current accusation does to the NPO [1]), but it nevertheless exists for the other side, and is used to justify all manner of actions.
    The foundation on which Pacifican exceptionalism lies is therefore extremely sandy in character, for the circumstances being used to launch it are the same that will exist in all future 'great wars', and indeed, in most future minor wars
  14. Vladimir
    Since 2007 and a peak of 40,000 the number of nations on Planet Bob has been dropping. This problem found its scapegoat in the New Pacific Order and formed a powerful pillar of anti-Pacifican thought throughout the Initiative and Continuum eras: for not only was the Order a political enemy, it was a threat to our very existence! However, the constant monitoring that we saw between 2007 and 2009 has now dried up, and debate on the causes has been strangely absent over the past year despite numbers dropping at an increasing rate -- down by around 6,000 to 23,700 since the end of the Armageddon War; the lowest figure since 2006.
    What is the reason for this lack of concern? One hesitates to say that it has disappeared completely, since the existential threat remains and its problems -- lack of trades and tech-sellers among them -- are a constant in inner-alliance discussion. Rather, it is simply no longer convenient to discuss the threat as having political causes since it would now require the then-accuser to change, complicating their own immediate political goals in the process.
    We are thus left with three options: politics is still to blame, but nobody wants to talk about it; it was never believed that politics is to blame; it was believed that politics is to blame, but as soon as the political power-structure changed so did that belief.
    Not being a mind-reader, and with no discussion from which to take hints, it is impossible for me to answer this question. But I would suggest that none of the three options paints the protagonists in a particularly glorious light.
  15. Vladimir

    Rebirth

    By Vladimir,

    Expectations
    It has now been a month since the Order left terms and the hard work of innumerable Pacificans saw its reward. It is of no controversy to say that they surpassed all global expectations in the process.
    When entering terms over eleven months ago, most international observers worked with the hopeful assumption that the Order would decay under the dual pressures of isolation and deprivation, as so many others have in the past. Buying into their own oppositionalist propaganda they saw a weak and untested people, a tyrannical, decadent and incompetent government, and ultimately an alliance incapable of survival when put to the test. This particular prophecy, shouted with such self-confidence, is now understandably long forgotten by its proponents.
    In place of this lost prophecy we see an Emperor who wins plaudits the world over, and a people so universally respected that leaders wish they could fire and replace their own.
    A New Emperor
    A Great War heralds two things of importance in the world. The first is certain: a sea change in politics. The old blocs fall away, new ones emerge, and all the power-relations of the world melt away only to recrystallise in ways that one could never have imagined. The second is less certain, but nevertheless flows naturally from the first: a change in the Emperor of the New Pacific Order. The Emperor serves the Order, not vice versa, and so is always mindful that he must be best suited for the circumstances of the day -- as those change so it becomes more likely that the Emperor will. Thus we saw Comrade Dilber take over after the Great Patriotic War, Comrade Revenge take over after the First War of Retribution, and Comrade Emperor Cortath take over after the Armageddon War.
    Here it is of importance to note that for the first time in Pacifican history its Emperor has come from the economic wing of the Order -- a break from the historic dominance of the military, diplomacy and justice wings. The expertise and understanding that this brought was vital to the emphasis put on growth in the initial weeks following the war, as entire systems had to be overhauled to deal with the new restrictions specifically designed to stunt growth and demoralise Pacificans. And overhauled they were, as the restrictions were swept to irrelevance and growth proceeded at an unprecedented pace, moving the alliance from unsanctioned to second in score and strength, and giving the Order's former enemies a fright in the process. Significant at this time was the efficiency with which reparations were dealt with, especially after the appointment of Comrade Jasmine -- an efficiency which soon earned her an Imperial office.
    In this we can begin to recognise the second drive that Emperor Cortath brought with him: the drive for reform. The public face of this has been the transformation of the Imperial office, with with five out of nine Imperial Officers now owing their appointment to the new Emperor -- none of them coming from the pre-Bobian 'old guard'. But this is merely a symptom of a wider movement, demonstrating fresh strategic priorities and structures for the new era, from reform in Council (an ongoing process) and modernisation in Pacific Bank, to reprioritisation in diplomacy and rapprochement with historic enemies.
    The Emperor's new politics in foreign affairs are understandably what will draw the most global attention, and on this count there is much to discuss. The most immediate issue that had to be resolved was the forcible opening of the red trading sphere. This had been a major issue of contention since the very earliest days of the Order, with comrades debating all manner of paths forward -- from one extreme to another and back again. The question of how to move forward was thus before the Order, not least because many of the new alliances springing up were headed by self-styled enemies of the Order -- from arch-moralist Villien with The Moralist Front, to arch-misleading journalist Schattenmann with the Cult of Justitia.
    The path chosen was what became known as Red Dawn, which not only embraced the new opening of the sphere but offered material assistance to the new red sphere alliances and encouraged other alliances to join. Though, as became generally known, this particular path was blocked by the G15 until after the war terms expired and the treaty could be officially signed, it has nevertheless proved itself both as an experiment in a more cooperative brand of diplomacy for the Order, and as a demonstration of that brand to international analysts. This policy received its first real test when Solidarity was set up as an anti-Pacifican alternative bloc on red, highlighting the remaining spirit of opposition even to an enslaved Order, and urging others to flock to its banner. However, such was the success of the path taken that Solidarity's anti-Pacifican call found no echo, and it ultimately dissolved as two thirds of its membership left to sign the Red Dawn treaty instead.
    Lesser known foreign policies that the Emperor headed up personally were the rapprochements with alliances where relations had traditionally been strained, thus demonstrating the strong desire to reshape the terrain within which the Order existed. In each case substantial concessions were required from both sides, and substantial hurdles (or trenches) had to be overcome. As one might expect progress has varied, with some hurdles bypassed quicker and easier than others; however, it has everywhere been significant, even if just in laying the requisite groundwork of humanisation and understanding.
    Nevertheless, as the Order exited terms the cry went up that it was signing treaties with old friends -- as if this were a surprise! Indeed, the Order is deeply indebted to a number of alliances, who continued to fight throughout the most destructive war in history while others ran for cover -- and this is a debt which the Emperor has desires to repay, with a substantial rebuilding fund established for the purpose.
    However, this only tells half the story. During the period under terms the Order reconciled with many old friends and made many new ones -- often those dissatisfied with the incoherence of the continuing anti-Pacifican propaganda. We can thus see closer relations with numerous alliances who fought with Karma, some of whom, such as NSO, the Order now has a treaty with, and some of whom found their pursuit blocked by the very same alliances that would later complain about the lack of treaties with Karma alliances.
    The history of the past ten months thus establish themselves proudly in the mind of the Pacifican, demonstrating what is best about the Order -- the ability to objectively view what does and does not work today, regardless of its success in the past.
    An Old People
    We have begun to tease out some of the grand strategic reasons for the Order's success in driving through terms, as it was rejuvenated economically, politically and diplomatically. However, one must refrain from subscribing simply to a 'great man' theory of events. No matter how great the man at the top, he can only work with the resources he has and within the limits they impose. This is doubly true of a Pacifican Emperor, who embodies the strengths, desires and fears of the Body Republic, with the mere duty of channelling them in a concentrated and effective manner. On this the new Emperor has found himself a wealthy man.
    One of the major expectations of the Order's enemies was first that the membership would desert during a destructive war, and then after that failed to materialise that they would desert during a year-long period of terms that pauperised them. This too failed to materialise -- something that was unsurprising to those with memories of the great sieges of 2003-2006. The importance of this strong Pacifican spirit and camaraderie is not to be underestimated, for it was this that allowed the growth of the institutions that the Emperor put to such good use in everything from maintaining surrender term compliance to ghost monitoring.
    No less important was that within the Body Republic he had many comrades of outstanding ability surging through the ranks and using the institutions of the Order to utilise their skills to their full potential. Thus we can see in Military Intelligence Comrade Waterana, or in the Praetorian Guard Comrade Gandroff, or in the Pacifican Bank Comrade Letum; and indeed, Comrades JesseEnd and Jasmine both came through the ranks during this period to become Imperial Officers.
    From this we can recognise a victory of Pacifican culture -- of permanent revolution and revolutionary institutions; of solidarity and meritocracy; of imperial sovereignty and freedom of potential.
    A New Golden Age
    Such has been the rapid advance of the Order over the past ten months that one could be forgiven for thinking that it had already entered a golden age as soon as the war ended and terms began. Freed from the constraints of power it was able to rediscover its revolutionary foundations, knock down and rebuild formerly load-bearing walls, and fill the resulting structure with a Body Republic of unlimited talents. Disastrous events thus proved an ideal opportunity for examination and reinvention of structures and policies throughout. But it goes without saying that one cannot speak of a golden age while an oppressor breaths down one's neck threatening to sink in its fangs.
    The oppressor has now gone, and the Order has survived a uniquely vulnerable moment in its history as it leapt over the abyss to independence. It would be remiss to presuppose what an intensely unpredictable future holds, but an engine as powerful as this Body Republic driven by this Imperial Staff may yet find that the coming age belongs to her.
  16. Vladimir
    A spectre is haunting the Cyberverse -- the spectre of Pacifica. All the powers of the old Cyberverse have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: idealist and opportunist, warmonger and peacenik, coward and feared.
    The Order is not even out from under the yoke of Karma's imperialism, and already the printing presses buzz to warn the ruling classes of the danger and the town criers busy themselves amongst the downtrodden with tales of drunkenness and cruelty.
    To the experienced politician this is neither new nor surprising. For generation after generation the ruling elites have used the spectre of Pacifica to scare their members into obedience, threaten their allies into subservience, and beat their opponents into ruin. Anti-Pacificanism is thus sold to the great mass of the population as a pain-killer, both domestically and internationally, so that any injustice may be ignored as either necessary for the great mystical cause or the fault of the spectre itself -- through its action to cause it, its lack of action to prevent it, or its 'imperialist' interference in acting to prevent it.
    Cognitive dissonance is thus avoided, but what we find at the end is a population of drug addicts awaiting their next hit, and a ruling cadre eager to provide it lest the wool begin to fall and reality set in. It proved a significant problem, therefore, when Pacifica disappeared from the scene to rebuild, and cracks began to appear in the war consensus. Actions could no longer be blamed on the spectre, and slowly the underlying structures of the world began to reveal themselves; as forces turned upon one another and decadent leaders ran their alliances into the ground.
    Yet even then, with Pacifica itself nowhere to be seen, the spectre was reeled out. Critical thought was shouted down as recreating it, the actions of opponents were shouted down as embodying it, and the actions of friendlies were justified by contrast to imaginary crimes of days past. But this was little substitute for the opiate which had proved so effective, and one by one the downtrodden began to see through the fear used to control them, examining and questioning the world around them.
    It was therefore to be expected that, upon news of Pacifica emerging from the decaying Karma labour camps, the old powers would jump at the chance to reharness the opiate and pump it back into the blood stream of the body politic. But too much time has passed, and too much has happened. Too many leaders have shown themselves as corrupt and opportunistic, too many alliances have demonstrated their hunger for power and cowardice.
    Karma has indeed ushered in a new era, but not the one it imagined.
  17. Vladimir
    This was written for the Day of Triumph, the first day of the Feast of Prosperity, and was posted yesterday for the Body Republic.
    The Making of Francograd
    As we stand today in the reconstructed Francograd it is easy to think that it was always this way, its domineering Fortress built alongside the War Memorial and Cortath University by a single conscious architect. Yet we know that Fort Franco's shadow used to fall not across Sir Paul's Music Hall, but across the pastures where Comrade Karpathos would to tend to his cattle, just as we know that before Embassy Quarter was established there was a makeshift graveyard for the enemy's war dead sitting at the foot of Blackadder Hills. Francograd has been built over the ages, by a multitude of designers in a multitude of circumstances, each taking it in a new and exciting direction, each using their unique skills and perspectives to add to our great mosaic, strengthening it, and in their time building something timeless.
    One of the most pivotal moments in this building occurred in 2006, exploding on January 27th, escalating on February 5th, and culminating four years ago today on February 9th with the end of what would come to be known through the ages as the First Polar War. Yet looking through the historical archives of Francograd we find surprisingly little said about this great moment, as historians prefer to look forward to the Order's emergence as the global hyperpower during the Citrus War, or its setback during the Great Patriotic War. This is an oversight that we will put right today, the Day of Triumph.
    January 27th
    The Order entered the world in a manner fitting of it. The level of activity, organisation, pride and loyalty demonstrated by its members in the public sphere was not only unknown, causing alarm within other alliances. But all this hid the deeper inner life of Pacifican politics and meritocracy, for not only had the Order arrived with all of the above, but also with a wealth of talent and ideas, many coming from completely different traditions. The inevitable result of this was a degree of intellectual conflict, as different suggestions were proposed, implemented and discarded. The Order was absolutely united and dedicated in its meritocracy, but for the historian looking back, it is easy to entertain the suggestion that had development gone on without an appropriate test of the newly established structures and norms, intellectual discontent could have crept in amongst those whose ideas had lost out in this grand battle. Of course, that test quickly came.
    February 5th
    It can be of little doubt that to first encounter an entity like Pacifica is a daunting and intimidating experience, and as a result it is bound to elicit and number of different reactions. In the case of GATO there was a diplomatic reaction, ultimately ending in the signing of the first NAP, the Dove Doctrine. In the case of INC there was no reaction, as the alliance fell into disrepair and disbanded shortly afterwards. In the case of NAAC, the reaction was one that comrades today will find all too recognisable: a bravado-coated fear, determined to confront the the beast but unaware of how to penetrate its thick armour.
    This went on for some time, as they attacked us in every primitive way their primitive minds could conceive of. Eventually the freshly elected War Council decided that it had had enough: it was time to act. War planning began. At the time the Order was still just a week old, its nations undeveloped and unsophisticated, its war prowess completely untested. NAAC remained statistically stronger, with nations dominating the upper ranks, more experienced in the use of war mechanics. While confidence was high, this was a risk that could have ended in disaster.
    War broke out on the 5th of February as Pacificans launched themselves at their larger targets, striking in the world's first midnight blitz, maximising damage and shock. The next few days were a slaughter, as NAAC collapsed and its top nations rapidly sought the safety of surrender. NAAC's leadership, once so staunch in their determination to fight back the Pacifican menace, were now begging for terms -- any terms. The Order obliged. Just as it had started, four days later, it was finished.
    February 9th
    On the January 27th a complex bag of intellectuals and warriors had joined together to create something great. On February 9th they had become it. The war had demonstrated to all the efficiency and genius of the governing, military and diplomatic structures and norms developed, heralding their triumph and domination for years to come. It had demonstrated that this was no longer a mere mix of intellectuals from another land, but a disciplined military unit, marching ever onwards, upwards, together. They had looked into the whites of each others' eyes while bullets whistled passed and witnessed the unflinching strength therein.
    And while the Order was thus forged internally, made ready for the conflicts and darker days that were come, so too was it forged for the first time as a global power. The midnight blitz conducted on the 5th and the rigid organisation oppressively visible throughout the following four days could not go unnoticed by the rest of the world. Within the space of those days the Order had gone from a confident young alliance to a recognised superpower that could not be underestimated.
    It was the February 9th that we can look back to and recognise as the first step of Pax Pacifica, establishing our technical skill, meritocratic structure, diplomatic talent and raw military power as the benchmark across the world for all others to be judged against. When the ODN first appeared with the intention of bringing the Order to its knees, it was the Order of February 9th which demolished it in 24 hours. When the Great Patriotic War dealt it a dangerous blow, it was the Order of February 9th which re-emerged as the top global power within a couple of weeks, and had crushed those who had sought to destroy it within six months. When the Unjust War tore its diplomatic policy asunder, it was the Order of February 9th which created a new policy and once again had the world rotating around it before anyone else could react. When the Karma coalition thought they had destroyed it for good, it was the Order of February 9th which, with unprecedented speed and against all odds and predictions, prepared to exit terms once again in its rightful place atop of the world.
  18. Vladimir
    With the NpO's latest switch of sides, SuperGrievances have finally been able to open up their exit strategy to public view. With this opening we can first recognise SG's view that we have officially exited the bipolar world, which forces alliances to fight for the moral high ground (whether they are being genuine or realpolitik) and into a unipolar world, where they can take actions without great concern for damaging political repercussions -- for who is left to stand against them?
    Naturally the first stages of this transformation are of great interest for everyone, as they demonstrate the world that we will be moving into. Below I present just two statements from dozens that capture the essence of present:
    "And why should we let an alliance that aggressively and pre-emptively attacked us with no CB at all off the hook just like that?
    If you want surrender terms I don't think we'd be happy with any term that leaves TOP/IRON sitting with a nation above 1k tech just yet." -- Seerow [1]
    "They attacked me. They brought war to my alliance, and I have no reason to doubt they will do it again. Clearly lack of a just cause, or any cause at all, is not something to stand in their way.
    Much as I am not enthusiastic, I must take steps to defend my alliance and my allies before I can advocate peace." -- Archon [2]
    So what does this tell us? First, the obvious: terms are back. Of course, the word "back" implies that they ever went anywhere, when in reality this is the first war after the Karma War (which itself imposed the harshest terms ever seen). There was no idealistic break, just the continuity one would expect from power politics. Indeed, Seerow's assertion that they will push for all of TOP's nations to be below 1k technology is astonishingly harsh by any historical standard.
    But perhaps more interesting is the reasoning behind this, implied in Seerow's post and made explicit in Archon's: the removal of a challenger. This is the natural reaction to a war. Whether it is offensive or defensive is irrelevant, since either way the war was brought into being by a conflict of interests that each alliance desires to resolve. The intuitive way to resolve this from the victor's perspective is to physically destroy the defeated alliance's capacity to wage war, by removing technology and preventing growth for as long as possible. In this there is no change of direction from the past, which used precisely this logic.
    There is no consideration of 'past crimes' or any of the other justifications that were put forth in the last great war. There will be no allowing alliances to rebuild after a war on the basis that 'competition is fun' as was proposed. Rather, security will be put first and competitors cut down to remove the threat the pose.
    Recognising this logic and its implications, and the complete removal of Karma's normative logic from SG discourse, we can extrapolate future actions quite well, for we have seen precisely where it leads.
    We, the loyal readers of La Vanguardia Pacifica, on the other hand, are left still waiting for our Jam Tomorrow.
  19. Vladimir

    A Case Study in War

    By Vladimir,

    This is a quick follow-up to Thesis, Antithesis: the Story of a Great War.
    Structure and Unit
    In examining our political world we must recognise two basic analytical concepts: structure and unit.
    The latter, unit, is where most analysts spend their time, carefully (or, more often, not so carefully) examining the characteristics and motives of individual alliances, and making predictions based on these observations. The problem with such analyses is that they typically come to see alliances as living in a vacuum, and thus come to imagine said characteristics and motives to be static properties, leaving the theories developed with zero predictive qualities.
    The result is what we saw during the Karma war: dreams of multipolarity -- of multiple blocs competing independently, winning and losing wars, and building back up again to challenge the others on an equal footing.
    The former concept, structure, examines the underlying realities of our world -- when someone mentions international anarchy, they are talking about structure. Unfortunately discussion on this rarely goes past giving it a name. Structure is what provides alliances with their incentives and disincentives: it is what broadly makes a rational action rational and an irrational action irrational. If I walk off a cliff it is only irrational because an element of the physical structure, gravity, will crash me to the ground; if instead I floated walking off a cliff would no longer be irrational.
    Structural analysis alone cannot tell us when or where a great war will occur (though it can track the development of bipolarity), but rather gives us a wider view as to what will occur over long periods of time.
    The Great War
    The past seven months have been a powerful demonstration of structure at work. As we emerged from the Armageddon War we could recognise a number of blocs and forces, including Complaints and Grievances, SuperFriends, Citadel, Frostbite, former 'Hegemony' and many others. Under the unit analysis we would expect each of these blocs to build up independently to pursue their own agendas, but this is not what we saw.
    As the months rolled on what we saw was clear antagonisms arise between certain alliances and certain blocs as they got in each others way politically and culturally. As these antagonisms developed we saw them suck in greater and greater forces, destroying any proto-multipolarity in favour of a powerful bipolarity. The reason for this is simply that it would not be rational for an alliance to pursue a 'pure' agenda (that is, its whole program) where there is one side of the conflict supporting a part of their agenda and another side supporting an agenda that would be detrimental to their own. As a consequence of this alliances sacrifice their ideal world in order to practically advance its salient elements. This is exactly the same dynamic that we see when alliances join blocs in the first place.
    Recognising this we can see why nearly every major alliance in the world quickly became sucked into this two-sided conflict, codifying the bipolar world that had been in development. It was only rational for alliances to join a side and fight for the world that would inevitably emerge after it, based on the culture of the victorious alliances.
    It follows from this polarising that any minor incident will stand the risk of becoming a great war, and so we saw two great war build-ups with similar alliances on each side in less than a month, the second after the first failed to resolve the underlying conflict (much as the 'Third Great War' followed the Second). One could also hypothesise from this that the first attempt to spark a great war via The Pheonix Federation, was a calculated provocation to draw the opposing forces out before they were fully prepared.
    We can also recognise the disastrous consequences of the New Polar Order's acceptance of peace, which will inevitably be seen by those on its side as a betrayal of their interests, costing them the trust that is so vital in a world of imperfect information and the resultant suspicion. From here (assuming a Complaints & Grievances victory against TOP/IRON/NSO), barring a drastic political move, they will either be forced into the arms of a world order that is contrary to their interests, or be left isolated on the wrong side of the tracks.
    Likewise we can see the 'two wars' theory being advanced by C&G as the 'second' war is in effect a battle against half of the interests opposed to them, allowing a divide and conquer strategy that could set them up in a powerful unipolar position for some time to come.
    New Regime, Old World
    The post-NPO world therefore has served as a slap in the face to unit analysis and a confirmation of structural analysis. We can now see for the first time that the NPO did not cause the great war structure of our world, but rather was only a unit within it, vindicating the predictions made by structural analysis.
    We can therefore also expect the predictions made to continue with the end of this war. If C&G and their allies emerge victorious a new unipolar world will emerge built in the image of its hegemonic bloc(s), and, over time, a new counter-hegemonic bloc will develop to challenge it before founding a new unipolar regime. We can also expect the consequences of this, as, for example, wars like Athens attacking TPF or NpO attacking \m/ no longer develop into great wars, but remain curbstomps, and the treaty web continues to proliferate.
  20. Vladimir
    Preface
    This work was written significantly before the development of the current situation, including the pre-war build up. While it is the author's belief that said situation provides an excellent proof of his work, he has chosen to maintain it more or less in its original state, both because he sees little explanatory value in extending to another example, and so that readers can see in the present what has been described through examples of the past.
    Special thanks to UncleB and Blueline.
    Thesis, Antithesis: the Story of a Great War
    One of the few true global pastimes on Planet Bob is speculation about the next great war. Of course, this speculation quickly turns into an argument as it invariably meets no agreement on when it will be, who will be involved, why it will be fought, who will win, or any other matter of substance -- so much so that there is bitter disagreement about such a fundamental question as what a great war even is. But there is one implicit assumption common to all discourse: that history is cyclical and another great war will occur. This assumption, perhaps surprisingly given the track record of popular OWF assumptions, is correct, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, unrecognised and undeveloped. I will therefore lay out a narrative of the cycle of history, thereby providing a groundwork for future discussion. Hopefully in the course of this narrative other answers will begin to become evident, such as what a great war is and how we can predict them.
    Premising Constants
    In order to outline the nature of great wars, it is first of all necessary to establish a few constants about our world. The first is obvious: that every alliance is self-serving. In this way we can view every alliance as a force aimed in its own unique direction. These forces attempt to pursue their own subjective interests (hereafter merely referred to as 'interests'), sometimes freely, sometimes at the expense of the interests of a different alliance on a different trajectory. The second constant, following from this, is equally obvious: alliances will unite with others who share the salient aspects of their direction in order to increase their force and minimise the ability of opposing forces to prevent progress.
    From this we can see how blocs (whether formal or informal) establish themselves naturally over time as vehicles for alliances to pursue their own individual interests. But, of course, since not every alliance has the same interests, multiple blocs must form. Sometimes these blocs won't have immediately contradictory interests and will be able to operate cooperatively, and sometimes they will be in open or hidden conflict with one another.
    These are our constants and the logical conclusions that they lead to. But at this stage they exist in a vacuum. We know that contradictory blocs will inevitably form over time, and that this will inevitably lead to war between them. But we don't have the context of this formulation.
    Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
    It is extremely difficult to move forward on this subject in the abstract, so let us start from Year Zero, where the New Pacific Order was the first global hegemony, ie. an epoch-defining faction. Since this is Year Zero, we can see the NPO as our first thesis; that is to say, the Order's force was so great that it was capable of overriding the interests of the other, opposing forces. Over time the opposing forces began to believe that the ruling hegemony was a fetter upon its own advancement, and as it became conscious to this the beginnings of an antithesis developed. As time went on there was a constant battle between thesis and antithesis, as each fought to advance itself vis-a-vis the other. We could go into great detail and gain great insight here, but unfortunately it is outside the scope of this brief explanation.
    This situation was unsustainable. As the antithesis grew in relative strength (both physically and consciously) it had the single-minded goal to remove the fetter upon itself, and the inevitable result was the Great Patriotic War, where the ruling hegemony stepped back and was replaced by the clumsy collective known as the Coaluetion.
    Through this example we can see the constants in full force, with interests opposing one another, arriving at an irreconcilable contradiction, and resolving themselves through a great war -- it was thus that the constant quantitative battles became a qualitative change: the thesis and antithesis finally arrived at a synthesis.
    We should interject at this point to add that the first three great wars had a certain peculiarity about them, in that it was possible for all to involve basically the same parties, as they shifted from thesis to antithesis and back again. It is this failure to reach a true synthesis that has resulted in the claim that it was effectively one single great battle that alone deserves the name 'great war'. In this regard we can understand and even sympathise with the claim, especially in regards to the second two great wars, which the author regards in this context as the same great war with a brief interlude. But, that said, if we are to understand a great war to be defined as the antitheses' attempt to overthrow the ruling hegemony and arrive at a new and personally beneficial synthesis, then the great war is a naturally reoccurring event that cannot be pinned down to one specific time period.
    And so we move on to a second epoch where the Coaluetion is dominant.
    As noted above, the second epoch had an immediate antithesis in the NPO, which survived the First Great War still in a position of great political and physical strength, and immediately had the necessary antithetical consciousness -- the hostility of the new ruling hegemony demanded it. Due to this the synthesis only lasted a moment before the antithesis established itself and started the battle over again, consciously developing its own bloc to remove the fetter upon it. The result was the Second and Third Great Wars, where The Initiative decimated the Coaluetion and its successors, finally arriving at a truly new synthesis with The Initiative as ruling hegemony.
    By this point every major political force was a part of The Initiative, and as a result it was unchallengeable. So where was the antithesis to develop? The answer came from inside, as alliances within The Initiative found their interests diverging and The Unjust Path was founded. Again, thesis and antithesis fought it out, with the founding of ~ and the subsequent Unjust War.
    And again, after this war a synthesis was formed, with The Continuum, One Vision, The Citadel and others.
    Concluding Constants
    Through this history we can begin to tease out a few more constants. The most obvious is the pulsating trend of Bobian politics, as it tends towards bi-polarity, then towards uni-polarity, then back towards bi-polarity, and so forth. However, since it only tends towards uni-polarity in a great war situation, when both thesis and antithesis have accepted their incompatibility and have developed the power to each become fetters upon the other, we can say that the trend in peace time is always towards bi-polarity, as forces attempt to advance themselves and inevitably find themselves blocked by another force at some stage along the way.
    The second is that once the antithesis gathers together enough power, and consciousness of its position, everything moves at a massively increased speed. While at first the antithesis must be careful to survive the opposing forces, during a pre-great war situation each side must move hectically to gather up all forces possible -- destroying any potential multi-polarity in the process -- and capitalise on any minor political conflict. Thus there comes a point where a great war becomes unavoidable, and the only remaining question is on whose terms it will occur. In this way one can conceptualise a much wider situation than just the war itself, looking instead at a 'great war event' that runs from development of the antithesis proper all the way to the development of the synthesis.
    The third, and perhaps most important, is that great wars do not occur because of a single major (or minor) event or mere ideological clashes, but because a significant force or group of forces has found its material interests (whatever they may be) in direct opposition to the prevailing synthesis. This is perhaps the most significant constant in developing an idea of where the next great war in any given epoch might come from. It also helps us to understand the ways in which groups such as Vox Populi have aided the synthesis by removing embryonic antithetical elements before they coalesced into a genuine antithesis.
    The Rise and Fall of a Great War
    Through all of this we can see that there are generalities that are constant to every epoch. Every epoch begins with a synthesis; every synthesis inevitably eventually becomes a fetter upon a significant group; every synthesis becomes pregnant with its own antithesis that is fundamentally opposed to it; every antithesis develops and grows until it is able to take on the synthesis now become thesis; every antithesis, if it grows to such a stage, enters into a political war with the thesis that inevitably results in a great war; every great war, if completed, results in a new synthesis; the cycle starts anew.
    An obvious conclusion to come from this is that all great wars are naturally power plays, as one force seeks to remove a conflicting force. Of course, every epoch also has its own unique peculiarities that act within this framework, altering the character and time-line in which each of these constants comes about. We can recognise, for example, that while the antithesis developed in the Coaluetion, Initiative and Unjust Path respectively, exactly as the outline above explains, each antithesis came from a different place at different times with ostensibly different motivations. There are material reasons for all of this, but again it is beyond the scope of this work.
    We can therefore see then the most general of historical outlines, each inch of which would merit a dissertation of its own, perhaps revealing more important commonalities or peculiarities, or shedding further light on those already noted. But despite our limits this outline is nevertheless invaluable, taking the seemingly superficial assumption and providing a structure under it within which further investigation can take place. Taking this structure we can begin to discover why certain epochs vary in this way or that, or understand actions that may hitherto have seemed irrational. Great wars, therefore, tell us a great deal more than who has the biggest guns.
  21. Vladimir

    Class in Context

    By Vladimir,

    Of the Rise and Fall of Class
    Francoism's founding conception of the world was that of two mutually antagonistic classes fighting for control over limited resources. After years of having little alternative to the ruling class's conception – a view of the world through the spectacles of atomised individuals, great leaders and mighty regions – it proved a revolutionary idea that found widespread support amongst the oppressed sections of the population. Outlining in words what many had felt in practice for years, it became a powerful paradigm through which thoughts and actions could finally be calculated and articulated.
    But this conception was for another world, and nearly six years on it has become a tool of confusion rather than clarification; of intellectual enslavement rather than emancipation. We find ourselves combating both the straw man critiques of our enemies and the resultant disorientation of our comrades. Thus through this elucidation we hope that friend and foe alike will be turned right way up, where they can appreciate the theory in its full historical context rather than trying to cram its square form into our circular world.
    Of Historical Context
    The class analysis of Francoism posited a simple thought: that there was a qualitative social difference between feeder regions – the regions where all nations were created – and user regions – the regions that were created by individuals and recruited to from the feeder regions. Working from these base facts the analysis determined that there was a basic conflict of interests between the two types of region, as the feeder region sought to create and maintain its population and the user regions sought to either pull them away to their own regions or harness their power through other means.
    From this Francoism derived two classes: the feederites who held the interests of the feeder regions to be primary, and the userites, who held the interests of the user regions to be primary. In all cases the axiom between equal rights, force decides proved itself concretely. Userites, having by their nature a superior class awareness, were far more active in pursuing their interests, but when the class consciousness of the feederites surfaced, owing to their socialisation as a collective rather than competing short-sighted individuals, it was a thing to behold.
    These dialectically opposed interests made themselves known in many important ways, for not only did they lead to the userite exploitation of the feeder regions in terms of recruitment, but they led to user regions seeing in their interests the necessity of controlling the feeder regions themselves – in putting aside their sectional interests to open up their political-military power for personal profit.
    It was in this context that Francoism developed. Userites held control over the vast majority of feeder regions, their success in spreading false consciousness among the feederites was unparalleled, and the extent of the exploitation of the feeder regions was almost incomprehensible.
    The goliath feeder regions with their membership numbering in the tens of thousands found themselves subservient to the whims of the much smaller userites and their organisations. Those that dared fight back for their own interests found themselves under intense political pressure at best, and under military occupation at worst.
    What this analysis meant to the Francoists was nothing short of the necessity of armed revolution. The userites would never leave voluntarily and the regional mechanism of delegates and endorsements made anything but the most superficial and temporary reform impossible. In order to regain control over their lives and their regions, the feederites must overthrow their respective governments and install feederite rule.
    Feederite rule meant nothing short of the ejection of all userites and userite influences from regional government, the creation of new feederite institutions, and solidarity with feederites in other regions. Above all it was an unforgiving revolutionary rule and would remain so for as long as the userite threat remained.
    When the first feederite revolution took place on the 28th of August 2003 it shook the userite world to its core and provoked an unprecedented response that lasted for years – a response that would be echoed and exceeded in all subsequent feederite revolutions. The userite state was deposed, the userites themselves cleansed from the region, and it was made amply clear that the region would no longer be a userite satellite state.
    In this revolutionary theatre developed the first truly feederite institutions. Among them were the Senate, the Praetorian Guard and the Civil Code, but most important for the contemporary student was autocratic democracy. The physics of the feeder region were simple: every UN nation could attach their endorsement to other UN nations and the nation with the most votes became delegate. The delegate was in an all-powerful position, with (among other things) the ability to eject and ban any nation from the region. Due to this it was necessary first of all to place absolute power in a single individual who would then represent the class in all things. It was through this necessity that the class composition of the feederite government combined with the physical laws of the universe and the fire of revolution to bring about this intrinsically feederite institution that survives to this day.
    But there were also a great many things that the revolution did not attempt to bring. The first was the question of perfect equality among the class. It is true that the toll booths from feeder region government to userite organisation hierarchy were demolished, and their fares of 40 silver pieces expropriated, thus removing the possibility for one to rise above the region while still commanding it, and in this regard there was a certain equality. But within the region itself a meritocratic ideal was universally adopted, and those with the ability to rise (rather than those who did userites the most favours) were permitted, and indeed, encouraged to.
    Likewise, class rule was never a latent or peaceful thing. If one challenged feederite rule then they were doing the work of the userites and promptly removed. In this there was no hesitation or regret, either from the delegate or the masses. The feederites were building something magnificent, but in order to do this they had first to survive against the userite forces of the entire world, and in doing so they had thoroughly militarised themselves. Threats were dealt with swiftly.
    Of Contemporary Context
    While only the briefest overview, it should be evident by now what class was, what it meant, and above all how important it was to Francoism. The astute reader, then, will begin to wonder why it is still discussed outside of the narrowest parameters at all. Today there are no feeder regions and thus no feederites; no user regions and thus no userites. Indeed, there are no conflicts along these lines and thus no classes at all. One might try (as many epigones have) to ascribe certain attributes from those classes to individuals or collectives today, but without the material basis for them they are less than meaningless.
    Can one describe freedom, sovereignty and anti-imperialism today as the class-analysis Francoists used to? Those Francoists were for self-determination against userite exploitation, but in all circumstances for interregional solidarity with other feederites and feeder regions. Which of these positions do you adopt, or do you try to adopt both and arbitrarily pin them on different groups? For them freedom was class rule, but where will you find this class today? No matter what option you choose or how you dress it up you are handicapping yourself. Just as you cannot take the gravitational force of the moon and apply it to calculations on Planet Bob, nor can you take class analysis from another world and apply it here.
    But this is not to say that nothing can be taken or learned from class-analysis Francoism. As previously noted a number of institutions are still with us today, born out of class conflict but adapted to new conditions. Likewise with precedents in law, philosophy and strategy. There is much to be taken, you must only be careful that you take the right things.
    Of Misrepresentation and Materialism
    Unfortunately much of the confusion on the matter of class stems from consciously fraudulent misrepresentations of theory; misrepresentations that are likely to continue even if not a single unilluminated corner is left for genuine confusion to hide in. Nevertheless it falls to us to dispel the misrepresentation wherever it arises, for such a fundamental error if left unchecked leads to innumerable mistakes and gradually revises much more over time.
    Genuine confusion on the matter can only arise in the absence of a materialist outlook – the bedrock on which all of Francoism is based. Materialism at its most basic is the idea that base material reality – the physical laws that govern our world – gives rise to superstructure – culture, government, etc. This is a result of the first and continuing activity of nations and alliances being to organise around the physical laws of the world and their natural reactions to them. Of course it would be remiss to ignore the mutual relationship between the two, where superstructure acts back upon the material base to an extent, but the relationship remains as explained.
    It follows therefore that one cannot understand things independently of the material base, and that when the material base changes so does the superstructure and its implications; thus the disappearance of class from the material base dictates the disappearance of class-analysis from the ideological superstructure.
  22. Vladimir
    It has been popular for some time now to flaunt one's knowledge of Francoism by dismissing it as 'changing every few minutes to whatever suits Vladimir and the New Pacific Order'. Given this, one would expect there to be dozens, hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of internal contradictions and inconsistencies within the philosophy, as it is forced to sway one way and then the other. Yet, despite this, and despite my directly asking to see a single such contradiction every time I see the criticism made, none have been forthcoming.
    Why is this? Well, it is clear to me, as I explained a few months ago, that it is purely political.
    But I live to be proven wrong, and therefore open the floor to:
    The Francoist Challenge.
    You start off in a darkened, circular, stone room. There are two doors in front of you, and an old man in a cloak. Through one door, fame and fortune -- a shiny place in every future post directed against myself or Francoism. Through the other, dreary self-enlightenment, where study and critical thought have rendered you an independent mind -- a fate surely worse than death.
    You move forward, but the old man steps out in front of you, saying nothing, but not allowing you to pass. Not until you show yourself worthy of one door.
  23. Vladimir
    The concepts of morality and imperialism have found themselves in a peculiar paradox on Planet Bob. Already shouts go up from the gallery, 'Morality and imperialism are mutually exclusive! The only relationship is opposition!' This is the common view from the side of moralism, but it is a superficial one: morality and imperialism, far from being mutually exclusive, are in fact two sides of the same coin. This is implicit in the attacks that some alliances now make upon the global opposition to espionage on Planet Bob -- the claim being that it is a moral view created by the New Pacific Order in its own interests, thus making the dual implications that morality is based on individual interest, and that morality goes hand in hand with imperialism. As it happens this example is incorrect, but the conclusion is isn't, and thus frames our investigation nicely.
    Defining the Concept
    The first question we must pose ourselves: what exactly is imperialism? At its most basic it is the dictation of another entity's actions without their consent. How and why this is done varies, but certain constants must always exist, and at the forefront of this is a code of right and wrong. Any apparatus of control necessitates certain rules along which it, and by extension everyone under it, must operate. Of course, such exists inside every alliance and every institution -- in joining any group we agree to abide by its rules, whether written in law or lying unwritten in the culture and ideology of the group. What differentiates imperialism from this is that unwilling groups are effectively forced into abiding by the rules (written or unwritten) through threats, coercion and war. It is, simply put, a demand that everyone should do as a central group demands, rather than a social contract to keep within certain limits for the mutually accepted common interest.
    And so we enter onto the subject of morality. One can see that every individual, every alliance, and every bloc operates with a morality of some sort or another -- a morality simply being an accepted code of right and wrong. However, what we have seen recently is the coming to the fore of an 'international' conception of morality; that is to say, a code of right and wrong that applies to everyone whether they accept it or not, with the implication that if one does not accept it they are unworthy and should be subject to sanctions. This is a belief in an 'absolute morality' (a morality that is true everywhere always), with the caveat that the centre's morality rather than anyone else's is the correct one.
    From these two facts the concepts almost seem to be one in the same. If one holds to an 'absolute morality' and demands that it is followed, then we are only one short step from outright imperialism. As the moralist develops and begins to try and push their morality, they begin to pressure, then coerce, and finally force by military means, its acceptance by the wider population. It is here that the concepts of absolute morality and imperialism cease to be different, being as it is a demand for all others in the global community to abide by rules dictated by the centre. Morality becomes de facto law, the moralist becomes judge, jury and executioner of the entire world.
    Critiquing Absolute Morality
    Understanding this, the cry goes out from the moralists, 'But there is an absolute morality!' It is difficult to see the rationale behind this claim. If one is to argue that an absolute morality exists, then they must be able to explain where it comes from. Nature? Nature holds no opinion separate from man. God? The closest thing we come to a god, Admin, has stated otherwise quite explicitly. Man? If this were the case, then there would be no need to enforce it, being inherent to every man as it would naturally be. Indeed, even the briefest of observations would demonstrate to the most stalwart moralist that absolute morality is a fiction. Every individual, every alliance, every bloc: all undeniably have their own unique moralities. Sometimes they overlap, but none are the same; and even where there is a lot of overlap on a certain issue, it is never universally held.
    We can therefore see morality as entirely relative, changing from person to person, from group to group, and that the vision of an absolute morality is nothing more than the forced extension of one's own morality onto others. So where does morality come from? From the moralist's brief observation they should have discovered the simple answer: morality develops inside any group in order to aid in its smooth operation, and from there it is internalised by the individuals involved. That is to say, an alliance develops a moral system by codifying its interests into something that cannot be tampered with by any institution, individual or force. From this we can begin to understand the overlaps and differences: interests that are shared by different alliances, or interests that conflict.
    We could go on to expand this point at great length, but there is only one important lesson for our purposes here: the pursuit of an absolute morality is not only the forced extension of an individual morality onto others, but in fact the forced extension of the individual's political interests onto others. It is thus that moral outrage always stems from those with vested interests in the downfall of the supposed perpetrator, whether from a desire for revenge over past acts or greed for their place in the international order (whether in the name of power politics or simply reshaping the world in their image). At this point absolute morality can be seen as not only overlapping with imperialism, but leading inevitably to it. Since different moralities have developed to best pursue the interests of different alliances, by negating these one is actually fettering, if not launching a direct attack upon, the political interests of other alliances. Some moralities, of course, outlive their usefulness and become fetters on the host group itself, but the origin nevertheless remains the same.
    The moralist is therefore pushing for all others to live in a manner that is suited best to his own prosperity at the expense of that of all others. Moralism becomes, by its very definition, imperialism par excellence.
    Looking Towards Liberation
    The alternative view takes a far more libertarian stance in the international sphere. In understanding the flaws of absolute morality we can avoid the same dangerous pitfalls, instead recognising that what is best for us is not necessarily seen as best for everyone else, leading to a 'live and let live' policy that pursues one's own interests while allowing others to pursue theirs however they desire. Of course, we have already seen that morality exists in the international sphere in blocs and treaties, but these are opt-in contracts where the individuals involved have the choice to sign or not -- they are not being forced to abide by a code of right and wrong, they are finding their interests best served through partnership and compromise (usually coinciding with a moral overlap). Any actions taken by the respective alliances in this are a free transaction in pursuit of their interests as options (whatever they may be) are weighed and judged. In this way a free market of moralities and interests develops, each advancing its own interests while accepting that others will to do the same.
    But, and there is always a but, while we can accept the benefits of this state of affairs existing throughout the international sphere, it must always end as soon as another's face begins -- that is to say, your right to advance your interests can never involve attacks against me. Thus while one must take a live and let live approach, they also must reserve the right to respond when their security is threatened by another -- it is not a one way street. But this caveat of self-defence exists only for the alliance's directly involved, and those uninvolved by the incident or treaty should understand that it is not their issue -- not their place to take a 'moral' (read: imperialist) stance in the international sphere.
    In this way we gain a world where different viewpoints, moralities and politics can develop to their fullest and each go their own separate ways, each conflicting, but each respecting. There will always be debates and arguments over political and philosophical matters, but these remain as debates and arguments, and not as coercion led by an imperialistic conception of morality.
  24. Vladimir
    Oh, you noble Karmaites, champions of the little guy, protectors of the weak, bringers of hope, scourge of the strong. Imagining yourselves the creators of a new world, free from tyranny, where might no longer makes right, where nations do not have to live in fear of attack, where conflict is not a matter of mere chance, and where war is reserved rightfully for the deserving. Such sentiment, such morality, is it not your greatest strength? Is it not what binds you together as a whole in the face of such fierce internal contradictions?
    But wait, what's this? Someone has stepped out from the crowd. A small, introverted figure, his old tattered cap grasped firmly in both hands, he contrasts starkly with the prestigious crowd. Did a tramp wander in off the street, or did one of the help get lost? Wait, no, it's the little guy! And he's taking to the stage! Come to cheer forth the Karmaites, perhaps? To pledge a meagre donation of gold and weapons to aid the cause? No, he comes with all that he has, words.
    Thunderous applause rips round the auditorium as he makes his way across to roars of 'Liberté!', 'Egalité!', 'Fraternité!' The shuffling figure at the front stops and steps up to the podium. The Karmaites notice a small red badge, symbolising his home in the red sphere, Pacifican territory. The room erupts once more, a standing ovation, cries of 'Free Red!' ring around the hall. Finally, eager to hear the voice that they fought so hard to liberate, the noise dies down, and the figure at the front moves to speak. His mouth opens, his meek voice barely carrying the disproportionately large stage that he has cautiously dared step upon. He speaks for a way of life, simple, independent, peaceful and prosperous. He speaks for thousands like him, his neighbours, friends and colleagues. He speaks of the war and what it means to him, outside the power structures and institutions of global politics. He speaks of freedom.
    The room sours. Who is this young upstart? What are his credentials, his relevance? Noticing that the gentle nods have been replaced by and angry glances, the figure continues. He speaks of freedom from unprovoked attack, freedom to enjoy his simple life without being crushed under the mighty weight of another at a whim, freedom to pursue his interests unhindered, freedom to continue with life as it was.
    Outrage! Heated discussion erupts across the hall. How dare this uppity unaligned tell us what to do! Doesn't he know who he's talking to? The odd shout begins to rise above the base. 'Tyrant!' cries one, 'Oppressor!' howls another, 'Agent of the Pacific!' accuses a third. The figure looks on stoically and moves to speak again. Does Karma not fight for freedom from attack and from fear? For a world where might no longer makes right? So many, like he, came to red to experience such blissful freedom, and so they did. Would Karma seek to destroy such a sanctuary?
    But it's too late. Already the Karmaites have cast aside their sentimentality. Sitting atop of the world their vision has been widened, and the words of this commoner, this plebeian, no longer ring true. He is not trying to free himself from these things, he is trying to enslave us! By suggesting that the little guy should be protected he is instituting himself as a world police! By suggesting that he should be free to live in peace he is attempting to dictate our policies! Who can decide who attacks whom? We cannot label one attack wrong and another right, for it is dependent on the individuals involved and only them! Who else can decide what is a valid reason to attack, it is purely subjective! Freedom goes for everything, freedom to attack and freedom to be attacked!
    The stoic expression on the figure's dishevelled face begins to break as he realises the psychological process before him. But what about the thousands of nations that will be ravaged, the dozens of alliances destroyed, the many friends and rulers that disappear from our world altogether! Many in the audience can be seen waving their hands to dismiss the now despised figure. What of them? They should have learned to protect themselves, or submitted to the politics of another by becoming a protectorate. And in any case, what do these people matter, they aren't one of us, a NAAC or a LUE. They're lucky we don't just wipe them out and be done with it! A man stands up in the audience, and the hall quietens expecting a lecture on the universal nature of rights, as the Karmaites have become so accustomed to. But instead they are greeted with something new; something short, concise and powerful: "Planet Bob will never be tailor suited after your needs and desires. Get over it." The man is mobbed by those around him, seeking to pat his back and shake his hand.
    The lonely figure on stage, now long forgotten as the hall breaks into a rampant military anthem, reflects. So suddenly has the morality of man become the morality of god within this group; so suddenly has freedom for all men become freedom only for the self-appointed divine to act as they please at the expense of the rest. No longer is morality based on opposition to the ruling structure, on freedom from tyranny, but instead on reshaping the world in a form that suits the politico-economic strategy of the new ruling structures, neglecting or destroying all that lies without. Power may or may not corrupt, but it always changes one's perspective, and the perspective of the newly powerful has little room for him. He makes one last speech, unheard, but unmistakable in its clarity.
    Oh, you noble Karmaites, champions of the strong, protectors of oppression, bringers of despair, scourge of the weak. Imagining yourselves the creators of a new world, free from petty sentimentality, where might makes right, where nations must forever watch over their shoulder, where conflict may come at any time, and where war is reserved rightfully for those who cannot defend themselves. Such nobility, such mastery of power, is it not your greatest strength? Is it not what binds you together as a whole in the face of such fierce internal contradictions?
    ***
    All Karmaite opinion taken from [1] [2]
  25. Vladimir
    The more Karma are pushed on their actions, the more they seem to morph into the supposed monster that they fight against. In most threads we have now managed to move past the idea that the actions the Continuum and allies (including, it must constantly be pointed out, many suddenly-enlightened Karma alliances) took were inherently wrong, and have instead moved onto the idea that these actions are only wrong in a certain context.
    Thus what we begin to see is wide-spread use of the fallacious reasoning, where it will be pointed out that a proposal is exactly the same thing that Karma just finished condemning, only for the Karma representative to turn around and claim that it isn't the same due to some minor technical difference in circumstances, or, more often, some minor difference of perspective, ie. X didn't deserve the action, while Y does. Long forgotten it is that these actions were not condemned based on who they were carried out upon, but as an absolute rule. We didn't see a clause in the anti-EZI treaty stating 'unless they deserve it', for example, in fact we saw an outright rejection of the practice.
    Out of this basis comes more and more Pacificanised reasoning. "Do you honestly believe NPO deserves", "Do you believe it is in the best interests of Karma", "Do you think that the NPO [...] would then use that as a launching pad for an assault", "NPO put harsh terms on relatively innocent alliances [...], if Karma puts harsh terms on NPO (who isn't innocent due to the above line and multiple other reasons) then it wouldn't make Karma as bad as the NPO", "If the NPO does not get off easily, it is because they started this whole thing and have a large list of 'crimes' to atone for." [Thank you to shahenshah's thread for attracting all of these quotes into one place, but they (and even better ones) can be found all across the forum -- and that's before we even get to instances such as what is generously called the OV 'peace talks'.]
    Here we see Karma outright dumping the moral justifications and searching instead for their own immediate political interests. When it comes to justifying actions on the basis of how evil the NPO is, they do nothing more than justify actions on the basis that the NPO is their enemy while the NPO's enemies were not (or, more accurately, were, but momentarily are not), leaving one to wonder what future 'deserving' alliances lie just up the political road.
    We can amply demonstrate this by stating that the bones of the arguments as quoted above are exactly the same used by the so-called Great Satans themselves: everything was justified in terms of self-interest; wars and terms were justified on the basis that they would help prevent future attacks; the alliances attacked were demonstrated to be far from 'innocent', thus legitimising the actions against them by making them atone for their crimes.
    Of course, Karma representatives will come back and say 'but the NPO was evil and those alliances were innocent'. In this we have discarded the facts and moved onto mere labelling -- those who are against us are evil while those who are with us, and see things from our own perspective, are good. It is akin to saying 'I am right to do this because I am doing it, while you were wrong to do it because you were doing it'.
    In this way we begin to peel away at the self-deceit of the Karma coalition, going through layer after layer, from the hypocritical outer 'absolute morality' shell, through the confused 'certain context' skin, to the true 'pragmatic' core. It seems that Karma may have looked a little too long into the abyss.
    Welcome to the Evil Empire.
×
×
  • Create New...