Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'imperium'.
Found 3 results
Alright, so for the general understanding... The purpose of a functional alliance sovereign is to lift the AA above the state of nature Developing civilization increases hard military assets like tech and warchests, but also the promotion of culture, membership count, economics, etc Civilized alliances go to war to defend and advance their strategic interests (i.e. developing hegemonic standing, protecting allies, the "game of thrones" etc) Rogue nations and AAs disrupt forward progress, especially during peacetime, by crippling growth, harassing developing new nations, etc, without any rational long term strategic gain So for the TLDR, alliances used to crack down on rogues alot harder in the old days because conflicts tended to be more controlled in nature, and more directly based on large-scale political interests. Nobody liked rogues because no one wanted their high infra nations getting nuked while trying to build warchests, nor do you want new nations getting harassed while trying to build wonders. Universal cooperation against (and condemnation of) rogues was more of a thing. These days, there has been an effort among some political powers to use rogues as part of their strategy, or to shelter or aid rogues. For example, AM supported Ericsw123's attacks against us in June because it hurt warchest development. I assume they thought of it as softening us up down the road, or perhaps trying to trigger a losing war for ISX. Others simply turn a blind eye when convenient. These days, with rogues running around left and right, and AM outright cheering people like Khan, we need to put the foot down on what we consider terrorism (support of rogue attacks for political ends). We did this with Methrage, and now we do it with AM. If we fail in the effort, then we feel too much of a precedent is set, be it for future attacks against ISX, as well as attacks against our allies. We will not succumb and live under the equivalent of servitude to the whims of rogues. We will fight this threat until it is no longer a threat, or we cease to exist as an alliance.
Note: This essay requires a basic understanding of the principles of civilization laid out in the Meaning of Freedom. Back in 2016 I briefly suggested what could lead to a revival of moralism here: "I do think that any rejuvenation of moralism won't be by that name or necessarily looking much like Dajobo's NpO or the Cult of Justicia, but will instead be a result of tired nations choosing for themselves alliances with stable and codified FA approaches." My comment was ignored, but as the subject came up recently, I thought this would be a chance to discuss my thoughts on the issue. When the concept of Realpolitik comes up, images of immoral Machiavellian plots and shady back-alley scheming no doubt comes to mind. But when we examine the origins of the term... Historian John Bew suggests that much of what stands for modern realpolitik today deviates from the original meaning of the term. Realpolitik emerged in mid-19th century Europe from the collision of the enlightenment with state formation and power politics. The concept, Bew argues, was an early attempt at answering the conundrum of how to achieve liberal enlightened goals in a world that does not follow liberal enlightened rules. This essay will primarily address the bolded text above: If we accept that the Imperium represents a form of post-revolutionary enlightenment, then how do we advance our way of playing in a contemporary world that has often rejected morality? What is morality? The Producerist Renaissance Producerism represents a renaissance of classical CN materialism as first interpreted by Vladimir, from the viewpoint of the modern liberated tech producer and our upper-tier supporters. At first glance, materialism and morality wouldn't seem to share much in common. The Moralism described during the Cult of Justitia era was often divorced from an analysis of material reality. As a result, it tended to lose value as it became a rhetorical weapon used conveniently against one's more powerful adversaries. As wryly stated by one critic of Moralism: Some of the arbitrary positions taken by moralists, such as an anti-raiding stance against non-aligned nations, were based more on feelings than the material reality of the world. In the case of the Imperium, there have been times when raiding ended with the recruitement new members. These new members were then able to achieve a greater potential for economic growth and cultural development than was possible in the dark, dangerous existence of the <5000 NS zone. So, we are not interested in morality without substance. The Threat of the Sociopath However, there were and continue to be cases of nation rulers and even major alliances with a functional understanding of material reality completely divorced from any sort of morality. While the moralists could sometimes be a nuisance, the more sociopathic members of the global community would prove to be a real threat. On a more isolated level, rogues like Khan understand how to leverage their upper-tier warchests to cause maximum destruction to smaller nations. Bands of pillagers ranging from Mushqaeda to Monsters Inc have dominated much of the political discussion over the last few years. Wars like the Plutocratic War waged against the Imperium caused much more lasting damage that took months to repair. From the perspective of a sociopath, why attempt a productive existence when one can wreak seemingly unlimited destruction? The answer is the fact that according to most studies, more than 95% of the population is not sociopathic. The majority of nation-rulers are loyal members of their alliances, follow the rules, and otherwise participate constructively. Although many nation-rulers don't necessarily understand advanced concepts like material analysis, they intuitively understand the basics related to it such as the need for mutual stability in order to grow their nations. National Self Interest While individuals have different preferences, desires and goals, all nations have the same basic self-interests as outlined by Vladimir: "The self-interest of every nation is to remove itself from the state of nature: to give up its absolute freedom with the resulting removal of perpetual terror. It is in doing this that the individual nation will naturally come to sign a social contract and band together with other nations in an alliance, which allows them to concern themselves less with the matter of survival and instead concentrate on achieving their potential in other fields." The sovereign is charged with the necessity of lifting member-nations out of Chaos, the state of nature: "The sovereign thus becomes the centre that the rest of the alliance revolves around. It is a sovereign and only a sovereign that can have the strength and authority to provide stability in the face of the natural conflict that goes on all around it, both inside and outside of the alliance." Realpolitik as defined by John Bew is inseparable from morality. Our enlightenment is centered around the idea that progress is based on the "forward march of civilisation against the barbarism of absolute freedom." Our first duty therefore is the protection of our comrades, whether we are an Emperor or a new recruit, this duty remains the same. Even when the use of military force offensively is necessary, it is predicated on self-defense, which is why the Casus Belli is required to explain why an offensive war is necessary to our collective defense. The Conditional Treaty A war of aggression should not be unconditionally supported. One of the major problems with the treaty web is that a series of MDoAP links together alliances in a way that can drag an otherwise unobservant alliance into a conflict that isn't in its own self-interest. Alliances should never find themselves baited into joining a conflict, nor should they be unthinkingly chained into a conflict some distant ally of an ally started. The term meatshield came into use because of the tendency of some alliances to support a treaty partner unwaveringly without regards to the context of the operation, thus dissipating resources and weakening the membership. ODoAPs and MnDoAPs (nonchaining) tend to be wiser. In the case of the Imperium, we will always provide some level of support to allies, whether diplomatic assistance, rebuilding aid, or military action. However, we have no intention of ever being dragged into unwinnable conflicts with unclear political objectives at the cost of our own membership. There are of course risks inherent with the conditional treaty approach: One can find themselves isolated in the event of a "curbstomp," and it takes a high level of activity to maintain the alliance against an attack. Many alliances choose the "meatshield" path because it is easier, but in doing so they cede a certain degree of their sovereignty, and in effect, sacrifice their own ambitions to become a satellite. However, with active leadership in place, a reliance on conditional treaties provides increased political flexibility and the opportunity to pursue a morally consistent realpolitik agenda. This means a membership that is less prone to war fatigue and more willing to fight when it really counts. Increasing Civilization In an ideal world, all major political actors would act in the same manner the Imperium does. However, as John Bew noted, we find ourselves trying to advance enlightenment goals in an world that is sometimes outright hostile to them. Thus our realpolitik stance is our attempt to navigate the dangerous politics of CN, true to our principles, without being stomped out of existence. The Imperium was formed from the merger of ancient alliances like MCXA and LoSS. As we defend and advance this tiny surviving faction of civilization, we have found that morality and realpolitik have organically grown intertwined from the success of the stability we imposed in our corner of the world.
Libertarian Socialists and early Producerists meet, circa Spring 2014 The roots of Producerism began in early 2014, following the end of the Disorder War. Having been removed from my position as Hand in House Baratheon, I was free to devote my energy to ideological development. Forming the Revolutionary Order of Cybernations, I managed to pull together about 15 nation leaders ranging from both left and right on the ideological scale. Our discussions regarding Francoism and the state of Cybernations helped shape the early development of Producerism. After I joined LoSS, some of us managed to resurrect the SHADOWS... an old elite MILCOM unit separate from the chain of command... although at that point in time, we only had a handful of volunteers. We transferred the SHADOWS to the post-merger Supernova X, which grew to about two dozen members. the SHADOWS became both an elite military force as well as state security organization. We struck at rogues who targeted our allies, and developed dossiers on hostile adversaries. Because of our earlier discussions, we also signed with the Libertarian Socialist Federation. SHADOWS officers in Supernova X, circa Autumn 2014 Unfortunately, the SHADOWS was suppressed by the Triumvirate, and I was sent into exile by the corrupt government. We lost alot of good operatives in the Doom War, but a few loyalists remained during the months that followed. Producerism was finally implemented in a formal fashion during the July Revolution of Supernova X, during July 2015. As a result of the Revolution, the early beginnings of the modern Imperium established a Transitional State by popular Referendum. Former SHADOWS operatives formed the mid-level backbone of the new Producerist State, while Galerion and Edward Graceford became new recruits and earned a place in senior leadership. Micro leaders meet at the SNX forums and discuss Producerism, circa Summer 2016 The Post-Revolutionary government took it's current form during the January Referendum, which established an Order-style Imperial Command. In the months that followed, numerous wars took place, however following each war the Imperium fine-tuned it's doctrine and expanded the Interstellar Program to more free Nations. Following the Second War on Terror, which began as a result of yet another war of aggression by Monsters Inc and Methrage, a peace treaty was established between Producerists and Libertarians which finally brought peace and unity to the Brown Team. Libertarian Party of Cybernations guerrillas, circa December 2016 Libertarians and Producerists agreed on several common ideological traits, such as the importance of alliance sovereignty, the cautious use of Brown Team sanctions, and the need for cooperation between independent alliances. With the increasing prevalence of rogues and destabilizing actors, Libertarians and Producerists work together closely to secure and monitor the Brown Team. The LPCN militias combined with the formidable strength of the Imperium will pose a significant deterrence to future shenanigans. Miniature statue of NPO's Vladimir left at Demilitarized Zone Checkpoint, circa December 2016 As we march forward from the lessons learned during the last three years, we find ourselves more certain and resolute than ever: Producerism (and Libertarianism) has been proven a success despite the repeated attempts of our enemies to destroy us, both inside and out. We find ourselves in a unique position to study the wisdom of earlier Revolutionary leaders, while our feet remain grounded in the reality of the present. We each have in our hand a pen, we need only to write the destiny of the future.