Jump to content

Global Feudalism: An analysis of the decay of global politics from a Francoist perspective


The Zigur
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, they do kind of matter.
 
The pacifist alliances have shown and proven to be no match for even a modicum of a threat. A disorganized pacifistic alliance that crumbles and can mount no significant obstacle or challenge has no right to claim itself neutral. Neutrality in and of itself also implies that the entity has the capability of entering or becoming hostile, and on such grounds allows itself a permanent valid casus belli in being an inherent threat to the worlds surroundings. Much more in line with Cybernation's Pacifistic alliances (a la GPA, TDO,) is the moral defense that they are simply existing and not harming anyone, and as such should be not subject to attack. A neutral alliance does not have such a defense -- as their only defense is sheer military manpower -- which neither TDO, nor GPA possess in any modicum of worthwhile quality to deter any and every practical threat -- and are only unharmed at greater machinations and desires of the other players rather than an imposing "statistical," advantage -- which actually is just a farce and more apt to the paper tiger analogy.
 
In other words, stop calling yourselves neutral for your own sake or better yet for the good of the greater community learn how to actually play CN and encourage your members to participate and become more than a listless narrative.

You keep talking of labels, that you incorrectly stick to people, instead of stuff. You should proceed in the opposite direction.
It's difficult to address your considerations because they're so far from reality that there's almost no handle or grip to start from. For the sake of discussion, I'll try anyway.

No alliance of statistical significance is ideologically or practically pacifist. You're talking of stuff that, literally, isn't there.
Lack of interest and of experience in war mechanics surely negatively influence an alliance's war performance, but from that to conclude that the peaceful is necessarily unable to fight is an excessively long shot.
In fact I see no alliances crumbling, I just see you lecturing us on events that you evidently don't understand very well.

Your comprehension of neutrality is equally poor. Neutrality doesn't in any way inherently imply anything in terms of strenght or military organization. It's a stance of non-support and it hasn't to do with the political or military tools that a group is capable, willing or inclined to use to force or open its way with.

Neutrality is non-intervention and as such the neutral will leave the others alone unless they meddle with him first. Your idea or implication that a neutral can become hostile without having been provoked and without having a direct interest, and still remain neutral, is just plain rubbish.

Finally, I'll continue to call myself as I see fit and to play the game on my terms, for my own satisfaction and especially with the most adamant indifference for the demands of those that express them as arrogantly and as ignorantly as you have been doing in this thread.
If you don't like it you have the right, as a fellow player, to complain, as I have the right to ignore your complaints.
And of course you can also test your "farce and paper tiger" theory, if you're capable to get around to it. Good luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dude, did you even read what he said?

 

He didn't say longest running alliance in this game, he said longest running community....they pre-date our world bro.

 

Longest lasting community [i]in this game[/i]. Which is demonstrably false. They are - or at least may be, I honestly have no idea but am inclined to believe him - the longest running community in the other game.

 

And if we're going to go that way anyway, we might as well talk about every other invasion alliance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Longest lasting community in this game. Which is demonstrably false. They are - or at least may be, I honestly have no idea but am inclined to believe him - the longest running community in the other game.

 

And if we're going to go that way anyway, we might as well talk about every other invasion alliance. 

This is all a rather silly semantic argument. Yeah, GATO has like 2 weeks on the NPO. They have a strong community too ... and an ideological cohesiveness around the idea of direct democracy, might I add.

 

And yes, invasion alliances have strength because of the cohesiveness of their communities, which is usually around some set of beliefs we might call an ideology. "lulz" as an ideology, is not very unique, and not very strong. That's the point we're trying to make here, despite you coming in with your typical NPO-bashing that you've been doing for oh, 5-6 years now. I'd have thought it gets boring, but maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"lulz is not an ideology" is such bullshit.

 

so much long and sustained success in this game is the result of alliances built around "lulz". ultimately, "lulz" as an ideology is about alliances that care more about the people and the fun in them than the flag or the absurd made-up philosophy named after a cruel, terrible RL dictator (which is a fact you guys should really think about once in a while). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"lulz is not an ideology" is such bullshit.

 

so much long and sustained success in this game is the result of alliances built around "lulz". ultimately, "lulz" as an ideology is about alliances that care more about the people and the fun in them than the flag or the absurd made-up philosophy named after a cruel, terrible RL dictator (which is a fact you guys should really think about once in a while). 

Did I say "lulz is not an ideology?" Go argue against a strawman, comrade, if you don't wish to argue with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never really cared about Francoism during my time in the Order.  It was too RP for me to really care about.    And whether you like to admit it or not,  that view was widely shared by a large portion of people in the Order(during my time at least).   Of course the people during my time seem to be in positions of leadership and I can only assume they care as much for it now as they did when I was there.   

 

There's a few hardliner NPO members who still preach that stuff nowadays(see this thread) but for the most part Francoism isn't as widely cared about in the halls of the Order 

Edited by Cager
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of uncalled for to make a whole load of unpleasant remarks about a well written piece which someone has put a bit of effort into, whether or not you're the NPO's biggest fan. 

 

Also, at the OP, you're Junka/Unko whatsit, right? I vaguely remember you. We had some sort of friendly rivalry going on at one point. You were cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On friends > infra I believe it was Flak Attack who said something like "Friends > infra was a great tool to inspire us to fight NPO and a great tool to shame our enemies into beat downs". Elevating it into a guiding philosophy is like turning windmills into giants. It's just not there. RV says Francoism was the same thing. He certainly has the authority to say that, so maybe there never were giants here.

 

That sounds terribly unlike something I would say.  I strongly support the Friends>Infra strategy.  So long as a friend continues to treat me and mine right, I'll stick by them.  That doesn't, however, mean I will extend that to all other alliances.  I am more than willing to throw outsiders under the bus to protect myself and my friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
That sounds terribly unlike something I would say.  I strongly support the Friends>Infra strategy.  So long as a friend continues to treat me and mine right, I'll stick by them.  That doesn't, however, mean I will extend that to all other alliances.  I am more than willing to throw outsiders under the bus to protect myself and my friends.


I was almost certain it was you. Oh well then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MK and it's allies lacked one thing: a stability-encouraging higher ideology that could place collective principles above the individual, and pave the way to long term dominance.

 

Instead, the Mushroom Kingdom's incomplete dominance came into fruition with the "friends before infra" philosophy of foreign affairs. It was superbly executed, and lead to many victories and strong alliances, but unlike the old NPO, Mushroom Kingdom would never be able to provide a new hegemony because of the internal contradictions inherent in this approach. This was the beginning of Global Feudalism.

 

With no higher ideology or sense of purpose guiding the victors, they would soon decay into competing power spheres battling for petty influence on an almost month-to-month schedule -- only held together weakly, out of fear of the NPO. With this decay came population decline and further draining of talent. It reminds one of the fall of the Roman Empire or Soviet Union in other planes of existence. Newer, more amateur leadership styles encouraged more egotistical approaches, devolving politics into blood feuds, alliance-wide raids, and even the abandonment in many cases of traditional Casus Belli approaches to war. Stability will never exist again while these trends prevail.

 

I fought as a member of NONE and then the League of Free Nations and have different perspective based upon the history I experienced first hand. The idea of seeking dominance and having an unifying ideology with the object of seeking stability lacks something vital: There must be a compelling reason for nations to want to stay on the Planet.

 

Certain kinds of rulers, particularly freedom loving ones, are not going to remain if they are faced with the choice of subjugation or constant attacks. This began when the New Pacific Order became dominant. They did not directly attack independent nations and small alliances, but they protected those that did. This resulted in a slow attrition that continues to this day.

 

Many here gleefully cheered as members of NONE and the League of Free Nations chose to have their nations destroyed and to leave the Planet for good rather than be forced to conduct our affairs to the liking of those who preferred to select weaker nations, attack them and force them to apologize and pay reparations should they dare to fight back. Yet, we were the ones depicted as the bad guys merely for wanting to associate as we see fit.

 

Consequently, there are now fewer total nations than there were nations that did not belong to an alliance before the New Pacific Order sought dominance and stability by force of arms as well as drowning out any dissent by threat of violence here in the Open World forums.

 

At the time, I had thought that walford was exaggerating in his warnings about this, but now I see the results for myself. So long as there is no place on this planet for peaceful singular nations and small alliances to enjoy their independence, many people who start out here will leave when they realize that they must choose their between their freedom and their security.

 

No amount of ideology, dominance or stability can entice such people to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fought as a member of NONE and then the League of Free Nations and have different perspective based upon the history I experienced first hand. The idea of seeking dominance and having an unifying ideology with the object of seeking stability lacks something vital: There must be a compelling reason for nations to want to stay on the Planet.

 

Certain kinds of rulers, particularly freedom loving ones, are not going to remain if they are faced with the choice of subjugation or constant attacks. This began when the New Pacific Order became dominant. They did not directly attack independent nations and small alliances, but they protected those that did. This resulted in a slow attrition that continues to this day.

 

Many here gleefully cheered as members of NONE and the League of Free Nations chose to have their nations destroyed and to leave the Planet for good rather than be forced to conduct our affairs to the liking of those who preferred to select weaker nations, attack them and force them to apologize and pay reparations should they dare to fight back. Yet, we were the ones depicted as the bad guys merely for wanting to associate as we see fit.

 

Consequently, there are now fewer total nations than there were nations that did not belong to an alliance before the New Pacific Order sought dominance and stability by force of arms as well as drowning out any dissent by threat of violence here in the Open World forums.

 

At the time, I had thought that walford was exaggerating in his warnings about this, but now I see the results for myself. So long as there is no place on this planet for peaceful singular nations and small alliances to enjoy their independence, many people who start out here will leave when they realize that they must choose their between their freedom and their security.

 

No amount of ideology, dominance or stability can entice such people to stay.

 

To be fair, Pacifica had to deal with the hand she was dealt. I do not believe that she enjoyed rubbing shoulders with GOONS, LUE or others, but I believe they did so because that's the best they could do in maintaining a hegemony. The concept of raiding, lulz wars and so forth is generally anti-Francoist in nature because they are highly destabilizing. Pacifica also made her share of blunders and poor choices; for example, EZI sentences for too many people led to Vox Populi.

 

NPO is a study of an alliance that tried to do the right thing, tried to promote stability, and indeed under Pacifica's reign the world reached levels of prosperity that may never be seen again. Still, she was not perfect, and we can draw certain lessons from this.

 

In Hawaiian culture the concept of pono exists. Its full context means "the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness." A pono leader will balance the interests of the realm and his people, so that all may enjoy prosperity; with a set of just laws and a humble ruler, the land will bear life and prosperity. He will cut throats and go to war, but only to ensure the greater good prevails.

 

I would like to see another hegemony form that protects the weak as well as the strong. A hegemony that would respect neutrals and independent alliances who desire their own path. This is the true essence of Francoism: begin with the fundamentals within the alliance, and slowly build a stable, prosperous sphere that other alliances desire to be a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't you say that you opposed Pacifica in a past nation? How you go from that to saying that hegemonistic Pacifica was well-intentioned doesn't add up in the slightest. It makes more sense now why what you're saying doesn't make sense.

 

Yes, I was an enemy of the NPO, but I never bore hate for them and indeed always held them in respect. After all what they accomplished was extraordinary. My opposition to NPO was one of a rival, not of a moral detractor.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a leader of an unapologetic 'Lulz Alliance', and as a former thug of the Moo-era NPO oppression machine, I can assure you that all of your assumptions and beliefs are utterly wrong. In the 4 months that I served as a soldier in Pacifica's armies, we destroyed 2 small alliances, I personally brutalized 3 micro-alliances as they literally cowered in terror. We wiped an invasion alliance of hundreds off the face of the earth because it was suspected its leader might have anti-NPO tendencies, and had kept FAN under our boot-heel for the better part of two years.

The Random Insanity Alliance furthermore takes exception to your insinuations about the glorious Lulz ideology, and would like to take this moment to point out its innate superiority.

Edited by Ogaden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a leader of an unapologetic 'Lulz Alliance', and as a former thug of the Moo-era NPO oppression machine, I can assure you that all of your assumptions and beliefs are utterly wrong. In the 4 months that I served as a soldier in Pacifica's armies, we destroyed 2 small alliances, I personally brutalized 3 micro-alliances as they literally cowered in terror. We wiped an invasion alliance of hundreds off the face of the earth because it was suspected its leader might have anti-NPO tendencies, and had kept FAN under our boot-heel for the better part of two years.

 

I don't think you understand, Ogaden.  NPO was very generous to all small and neutral alliances.  Just ask GPA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think you can build an empire on kind words and wishes, you have another thing coming. My alliance was wiped from the map and I was EZI'd, all because we decided to challenge NPO. And yet here I am, risen again, bearing no ill will toward my old enemy. In the end, the only thing that matters is family and the realm. That's what Francoism is really about... promoting the interests of your member nations, and promoting stability.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good lord this is an ooc forum, you don't have to pretend you aren't grossed out by the whole thing

 

If you were truly disgusted with the actions of pre-Karma Pacifica, you wouldn't have founded, and then lead, an alliance that went on to support the post-Karma Mushroom Kingdom & co.

 

The fact remains that the detractors of the old NPO are (usually) the same people that went on to join MK, Umbrella, GOONS, VE, etc in their crusade to become the exact thing that they supposedly hated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were truly disgusted with the actions of pre-Karma Pacifica, you wouldn't have founded, and then lead, an alliance that went on to support the post-Karma Mushroom Kingdom & co.

 

The fact remains that the detractors of the old NPO are (usually) the same people that went on to join MK, Umbrella, GOONS, VE, etc in their crusade to become the exact thing that they supposedly hated.

How are crippling reparations, forced disbandment, PZI, and Viceroys remotely similar to anything MK and co. have done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were truly disgusted with the actions of pre-Karma Pacifica, you wouldn't have founded, and then lead, an alliance that went on to support the post-Karma Mushroom Kingdom & co.

 

The fact remains that the detractors of the old NPO are (usually) the same people that went on to join MK, Umbrella, GOONS, VE, etc in their crusade to become the exact thing that they supposedly hated.

 

A) I'm primarily disgusted by the reverent worship of something based more or less entirely on whatever Ivan thought would bore him the least that day.

 

B) Nothing we did approaches what you did, either on the level of being creepy or being game crippling or being just over the line for a game.

 

C) You do remember the months you spent trying desperately to fit into our community right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pacifica had to deal with the hand she was dealt. I do not believe that she enjoyed rubbing shoulders with GOONS, LUE or others, but I believe they did so because that's the best they could do in maintaining a hegemony. The concept of raiding, lulz wars and so forth is generally anti-Francoist in nature because they are highly destabilizing.

 

I would say that the end of "maintaing hegemony" did not justify the means of protecting alliances that attack single nations and small alliances, then go on to punish any victims who dared to fight back. It was destabilizing as you say. It has also served to drive thousands of nations away because they apparently did not want to exist on a Planet that not only tolerates, but protects such behavior.

 

There is something unrealistic about how wars work on this Planet. If there really were this many wars going on in a more realistic system, the world economy would have collapsed and technology would have been degraded to pre-industrial levels. That consequence is spared us, but those of us who have been here a long time will remember how much easier it was to obtain and keep connected trade resources, and this was before it was possible to change one's native ones.

 

So we are all experiencing the negative effects of protecting those who attack single nations and small alliances for sport and profit. NONE and the League of Free Nations was annihilated because it was deemed too difficult for aggressors to determine how many we were and who would fight alongside us if attacked. We only fought defensive wars, but our means of doing so was too threatening, because it might turn out that an aggressor would end up with less than what he started with. That, and our No Surrender policy made this likely.

 

If we merely made it so those who make war against single nations and small alliances are not supported financially or militarily, that would be enough to give the victims a better chance to fight back. Perhaps more of them would then choose to stay and continue to trade with us.

 

 

A pono leader will balance the interests of the realm and his people, so that all may enjoy prosperity; with a set of just laws and a humble ruler, the land will bear life and prosperity. He will cut throats and go to war, but only to ensure the greater good prevails.

 

I would like to see another hegemony form that protects the weak as well as the strong. A hegemony that would respect neutrals and independent alliances who desire their own path. This is the true essence of Francoism: begin with the fundamentals within the alliance, and slowly build a stable, prosperous sphere that other alliances desire to be a part of.

 

Throughout history, people have insisted that there is such thing as a benign tyranny. All we need is the right people and the right policies. Then the Good Lords and Masters can provide for us and guide us into a better life, because we cannot be trusted to do this for ourselves.

 

Every time this has been tried, it has failed. Some people will not serve a hegemon and will choose to leave rather than be faced with the choice of continual attacks or having a boot on their necks, even if the boot is covered in velvet.

 

We must find a way to create a welcoming environment for more types of rulers, besides those who like to make war out of boredom or because someone seems vulnerable. Most of the nations that have been created on the Planet are gone, so there is no shortage of people trying things out here. The challenge is, getting them to stay.

 

Let us encourage a system in which it is possible to have influence by fostering diplomatic discourse and the exchange of ideas here on the Open World Forums rather than violence being the only means to have influence. Civilized people are not going to want to stay under those circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...