Jump to content

Notice to the New Pacific Order


The Zigur

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Zigur said:

 

Im sure your next target will be neutrals or some isolated AA, too dangerous to go after other big boys.

If the "big boys" weren't on our side we wouldn't be a hegemony, now would we? We'd break your entire fantasy story if we did, we figured we can't do that to you.

 

Also @Maelstrom Vortex, for some reason that reminds me of Destruction Preventer from Sonata Arctica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 975
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hegemony is a bit more extensive than just having all of the big nations. It reflects a social, cultural and economic dominance established by a ruling elite of alliance officials that aren't necessarily acting in the best interests of the membership masses and periphery. Hegemonies can eventually fail for a number of reasons as Vladimir outlined in Toppling Tyranny.

 

This is why despite the hegemonoc power you represent, you fail to intimidate me at least. Every excess that happens, even if it's unpleasantly directed towards myself, undermines your position long term because others will capitalize on the grievances you inspire.

Edited by The Zigur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Zigur said:

Hegemony is a bit more extensive than just having all of the big nations. It reflects a social, cultural and economic dominance established by a ruling elite of alliance officials that aren't necessarily acting in the best interests of the membership masses and periphery. Hegemonies can eventually fail for a number of reasons as Vladimir outlined in Toppling Tyranny.

a) The only one not served by your destruction is you.

b) You can't even read simple statements about your behaviour, understanding Vladimir's texts is a bit beyond you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can.. may.. you play the "if" game a lot. Armageddon taught us our errors. In a way, Zigur.. our enemies have perfected us, purified us of our faults. We understand the value of interdependence so that the hegemony isn't driven by a solitary force. Thus.. this Hegemony will stand the test of time.

 

If we are arrogant, it is in the understanding our allies are so solidly with us now that it is likely order will not be shaken.. you should join us, not fight us. Peace and Prosperity through strength. Surrender.. accept the purity that is the lattice of Bob's perfected structure.

 

You do protest.. way to much.

 

By your theorem there is no system under which everyone can be happy, that someone will always be in protest and thus the order will inevitably be shaken to its foundation, with that I fully disagree.

Being a malcontent for the sheer purpose of being a malcontent, no party in their right mind will ever support.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no desire to fight NPO in the first place; I was target listed after daring to disagree about attacks against an independent senator. But neither do I want to join NPO and it's wars against peaceful neutrals like GPA. I wish, like any free person, to live according to the dictates of my own principles and reasoning, and to associate with others whom I chose who are of like mind, and to express who I am without retribution.

 

It is a free society that is ultimately the most stable form of hegemony, and we are very far from that.

Edited by The Zigur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of ones' principles if often ones' blood.

 

When you put your nose where it does not belong, it might get lopped off.

 

Far as I know we have no further reason to bother the Neutrals long as they are not supporting those that would mindlessly reshape the world of their own accord.

 

Association comes with strings by the nature of its very name. Be careful who you tie yourself to as like free speech, free association also has consequences. Those consequences being enacted by forces who are at odds against one another when you associate with one side or the other, it is not tyranny. You've picked a side in a conflict, you chose your own destiny. You don't get more free than that.

 

That said.. you chose incorrectly this time.. at least when it comes to self preservation.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a free society there is a low tolerance for violence. In fact, violence is only tolerated in defense of people's liberties. People are free to make choices so long as those choices do not infringe upon the freedoms of others.

 

It is immediately apparent that this is not the situation in CN, when so many here openly celebrate violence against others because of their different opinions, personalities, and lifestyles. The Casus Belli tradition is openly mocked, and the only justification for war is that the targets be unpopular.

 

Those who wonder why CN is dying should take a look in the mirror and ask how many CBless wars they initiated, and whether they might have driven off most of the more colorful personalities that once drove politics, philosophy, and aesthetic innovation in this world.

Edited by The Zigur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Zigur said:

In a free society there is a low tolerance for violence. In fact, violence is only tolerated in defense of people freedoms. People are free to make choices so long as those choices do not infringe upon the freedoms of others.

 

It is immediately apparent that this is not the situation in CN, when so many here openly celebrate violence against others because of their different opinions, personalities, and lifestyles. The Casus Belli tradition is openly mocked, and the only justification for war is that the targets be unpopular. Those who wonder why CN is dying should take a look in the mirror and ask how many CBless wars they initiated, and whether they might have driven off most of the more colorful personalities that once drove politics in this world.

 

We don't target people because of their personalities, usually, Zigur. Wars over differences of opinion have existed against the dawn of "civil" humanity. And as for a low tolerance for violence.. it depends on the type of violence. Still I must placate the humans in my realm with shows of force and strength in sports and contest in order for them to tolerate their existence. If there is no outlet for stress and aggression, most humans.. start losing their sanity. Oh well. More for my lunch table...

As for the tradition of Casus Belli, it is often that personality is used as an excuse or propaganda to hide a true agenda. Oh look.. that alliance has an unpopular leader.. and we want what it has.. we'll proclaim them toxic to the international community.. drum up a pr campaign.. and watch as the the world splits camps as it inevitably does, hopefully to our advantage and then devour it....

 

I'd say it's extremely rare that a war is truly, purely personality driven.. but in your case, it may be an exception. The reason being is you like to pontificate on free speech and free association and free this that or the other... but you have a huge flaw to your arguments......

You never take responsibility for that freedom.

So we force you to. Treat it as a learning situation. You are going to have to figure out how to get out of the mess you have created for Umbar. Military force, and pleads to an international community which is clearly ignoring you obviously aren't the solution you had hoped for. Time to use a different tactic? Might I suggest humility?

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Casus Belli is actually tied to Just War Theory, and it essentially means that a war is defined as having defensive objectives. So if we take the following three examples ranked from strongest CB to weakest:

 

1. A war declared against an enemy invasion 

2. A pre-emptive strike against a hostile adversary

3. A war declared over an insult

 

The first is, of course, defensive by definition. The second is weaker, and needs evidence to convince people that it is rightful in nature. The third, of course, is not defensive at all.

 

Astoundingly, most people in CN today don't even know about the Casus Belli, because they are used to wars started with dance videos, or "shark weeks" against peaceful alliances. Thus, the global hegemony, which purports to establish "order from chaos," actually weakens global stability... most alliances and individuals who are not entrenched in the establishment are constantly fearing being rolled themselves.

 

It is this instability, which you may have never ever noticed as an NPO member, that drives ambition in some to overthrow the current arrangement in the hope of one more suited to their own interests.

Edited by The Zigur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe in Just war theory.. that's just all fine and dandy. What if you believe in Survival of the Fittest? Essentially it is at the core of every meritocratic system. Promote the capable, and help the less capable when plausible if that theory is softened with mild mercies. In which case, the capable will establish themselves as a dominant hegemon, helping those that are willing to help themselves and to associate with it so long as they are not hostile. 

 

That's what you're seeing on Bob, the full implementation of Social Darwinism. There's just one problem about the adversaries of such a system, if the dominant order has already established itself.. it means the others were not sufficiently fit to stop it from doing so, which means the probability they will take it down without significant refinement is very low. Sharks week videos may not be very far from the truest of the matter. Why fabricate a CB when you can simply tell the truth? We see you as weak.. now you are prey. Join us or die.
 

This is the true Casus Belli for almost 100% of Bob's wars. Someone saw someone as soft.. and acted.. then others came in for or against them based on established treaty. Reason is almost irreverent, the outcome is the same.

You speak from a platform of morality that does not exist on this world. Instead, your moral crusade is seen little more as an instrument to sew instability and as disingenuous.Or.. in summary....

 

When you are the weakest, you must seek any possible means of escaping that state and every act of desperation becomes acceptable. Sometimes that leads to evolution, and hopefully that will happen with you and with Umbar.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

If you believe in Just war theory.. that's just all fine and dandy. What if you believe in Survival of the Fittest? Essentially it is at the core of every meritocratic system. Promote the capable, and help the less capable when plausible if that theory is softened with mild mercies. In which case, the capable will establish themselves as a dominant hegemon, helping those that are willing to help themselves and to associate with it so long as they are not hostile. 

 

That's what you're seeing on Bob, the full implementation of Social Darwinism. There's just one problem about the adversaries of such a system, if the dominant order has already established itself.. it means the others were not sufficiently fit to stop it from doing so, which means the probability they will take it down without significant refinement is very low. Sharks week videos may not be very far from the truest of the matter. Why fabricate a CB when you can simply tell the truth? We see you as weak.. now you are prey. Join us or die.
 

This is the true Casus Belli for almost 100% of Bob's wars. Someone saw someone as soft.. and acted.. then others came in for or against them based on established treaty. Reason is almost irreverent, the outcome is the same.

You speak from a platform of morality that does not exist on this world. Instead, your moral crusade is seen little more as an instrument to sew instability and as disingenuous.

 

The natural outcome of the "strong do what they will" argument is that there are no ethical checks against behavior that most people in modern civilized society find abhorrent. Slavery, rape, and genocide are all logically acceptable options for the victor. In fact, when such a philosophy becomes dominant, you will find people in authority driven by base desires like lust or greed... the perfect definition of Plato's tyrant.

 

Furthermore, I would argue that the selection favored by such a form of social darwinism is undesirable. The primitive and the violent can, through strength or numbers, extinguish the scientists, philosophers, authors, cosmopolitans. This was very much the case with certain tyrants [ooc]like Pol Pot.[/ooc] 

Edited by The Zigur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, The Zigur said:

 

The natural outcome of the "strong do what they will" argument is that there are no ethical checks against behavior that most people in modern civilized society find abhorrent. Slavery, rape, and genocide are all logically acceptable options of the victor. In fact, when such a philosophy becomes dominant, you will indeed find people in authority driven by such base desires... the perfect definition of Plato's tyrant.

 

Furthermore, I would argue that the selection favored by such a for of social darwinism are undesirable. The primitive and the violent can, through strength or numbers, extinguish the scientists, philosophers, authors, cosmopolitans. This was very much the case with certain tyrants [ooc]like Pol Pot.[/ooc] 

 

The natural outcome would be true if there wasn't an internal dynamic to the hegemony with cultural norms. I guarantee you that the social norms of Pacifica, other than eating babies, would have us expelling those involved in slavery, rape, or genocide. But truthfully, you argument is intellectually dishonest. Such instances have occurred in much greater frequency in societies that are not in part of a hegemony, because more frequently than not hegemons are the civilized societies of a given world. Frequently the reason a society dominates a particular social Darwinist environment is because it has come to realize the value of its internal diversity and exploit it. Slavery, rape, and genocide are foundations of societal decay in almost every situation you may study in history and more often than not, societies with contrasting values will often dominate those that embrace such filth because of that realization of value.

 

Therefore, Plato's tyrant is wrong, because Plato wasn't able to compare notes with a modern world with developed social norms. Modern reality debunks Plato.

 

Also, I think you misquoted plato. His tyrant theory is discussing the progression of societies from democracy towards tyranny, not specifically the measure of control which is more of what you are addressing. For a democracy to progress to Tyranny, there must be a democracy first. Pacifica is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy with democratic input, a form of benevolent authoritarianism where the populace is placed above the monarch and in exchange the monarch is trusted with the execution of societal will.

 

Any society that rules by physical strength and numbers can easily be overwhelmed by one that uses both. Pol Pot could easily be destroyed by the nations of the original earth had they desired to do so collectively, but the damage was done and the cost of undoing it would be more lives therefore, better to simply wait them out. There's also time impetus to the development of a power structure, who moved first. If a free society is still developing but one that relies on strength and numbers has existed longer then the latter shall easily win.. but if given equal time, I am rather certain the prior would dominate in any contest. That said, the application of theory becomes situational, which means the theory is flawed. 

 

Also, how we personally define culture can often be a source of hubris that causes us to undervalue what our adversary has created in terms of its appeal to its own people. Because of that, who defines what is superior culture? Technology is measurable, culture is not. Social Darwinism implemented in a global environment does not allow for purely strength and numbers societies to prevail in the presence of an equal with similar assets and more tech/culture.

But I think there may be a more fundamental flaw to your reasoning here in that we don't seem to share a common definition of the word "fitness" when it comes to national dominance. Fitness is not simply physical prowess or rate of reproduction.. at least not by our social norms, it applies generally to an individuals overall capabilities.

Also, updated my war theme to something new.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Zigur said:

Such a long rant, but I'll give a TLDR version. I subscribe to reason and logic, and that makes me the enemy of despots who rely on mysticism and tyranny.

There is nothing reasonable nor logical in anything you've ranted on about over these last 39 pages.

 

We are all worse off because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Zigur said:

 

The natural outcome of the "strong do what they will" argument is that there are no ethical checks against behavior that most people in modern civilized society find abhorrent. Slavery, rape, and genocide are all logically acceptable options for the victor. In fact, when such a philosophy becomes dominant, you will find people in authority driven by base desires like lust or greed... the perfect definition of Plato's tyrant.

 

Furthermore, I would argue that the selection favored by such a form of social darwinism is undesirable. The primitive and the violent can, through strength or numbers, extinguish the scientists, philosophers, authors, cosmopolitans. This was very much the case with certain tyrants [ooc]like Pol Pot.[/ooc] 

 

The natural outcome of the strong doing what they will is not dictated by your fear mongering or irrational conclusions.  Slavery, rape and genocide are not ''logically'' available options.  You need to take your head out of your fundamental orifice and begin to become self-aware. 

 

I think you have misunderstood social Darwinism considerably, but do continue to ramble on mindlessly.  The events of mid-last century in an OOC environment have nothing at all to do with your current situation.  You are not being targeted because you disagree or because you pose a threat, you are being isolated because you are undesirable, unremarkable and nonredeemable.  You are not a philosopher, you are a plagiarist (at best), you have never had an original thought in your life and you have never furthered the arguments of others.  You can not build on the foundations of great thought because you can not comprehend even the basics.

 

You have self-appointed beyond your capabilities or even most people of your characters wildest dream.  You are an attention seeking whore who also happens to be partially brain dead.  Again and again you ignore the criticism of your superiors (in and out of character), deflect blame onto others and project wild fantasies to hide your base intellect.  We are responsible for our actions,  I am not sure however you understand the fundamental differences between right and wrong, I do know that you do not understand personal culpability.

 

You have never been a leader's arsehole, you just don't seem to see it.  You have surrounded yourself in failure after failure, and any success you have been involved in stemmed from the greatness of your true superiors.

 

Isolated and alone, that is how you will be remembered, a court jester, a retarded spoon fed monkey who dances to the organ for adoration, that is your legacy.  This thread is sufficient evidence of what happens when the monkey has no organ grinder, you dancing has become uninteresting and most have moved on without a care.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm alright with NPO crushing you under their boot, the look suits you.😛

 

3 hours ago, The Zigur said:

It is this instability, which you may have never ever noticed as an NPO member, that drives ambition in some to overthrow the current arrangement in the hope of one more suited to their own interests.

Seems ambition is mostly dead around here, but if someone got motivated to challenge them; they'd probably enjoy the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AlmightyGrub said:

Isolated and alone, that is how you will be remembered, a court jester

 

While no doubt I have the ability to be a good entertainer, and it has been useful at times during my numerous campaigns in command of an army; I also have other qualities that can bring about a swift ascendance in many a court. Which is, perhaps, the true reason for being PZI'd.

Edited by The Zigur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true reason for being PZI'd, is despite any potential you may have, your execution gets in your own way.. to the point no one will intervene on your behalf. This is a time of self-reflection. Consider why the world doesn't care if you burn. As I said, I have hope you will rise above this, as life usually finds a way.. especially when it cannot be extinguished, only backed into a corner. Your box is made, traditional means of escape are not possible.

There are 5 lights.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Maelstrom, I do not think you wholly understand me. At no point have I been frightened by your Order. Your "five lights" is a reference to psychological manipulation and torture, but I am not Picard. My character reference is far more obscure than that.

 

You do not know, perhaps, the rough treatment I endured under another hegemony long ago. The secret is that I enjoy it.

 

Power is an irresistable lure for me. Sometimes that power is in the hands of men who desire to demonstrate it. And yet, when they are manipulated into doing exactly what I want them to do, who has the real power, I wonder. 🙃

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

I already understand your premise. I call it influence from the bottom up. The question is are you really manipulating them or are you both getting exactly what you want? Sometimes situations work out odd that way.

 

Whipping a dead horse will most likely bore your overlords before it bores me. Not getting the submission you crave, per your 5 lights reference, must leave a bad taste in thy mouth. The stick has proven ineffective, what carrot dost thou offer? Or shall we continue our banter for another few months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Zigur said:

 

Whipping a dead horse will most likely bore your overlords before it bores me. Not getting the submission you crave, per your 5 lights reference, must leave a bad taste in thy mouth. The stick has proven ineffective, what carrot dost thou offer? Or shall we continue our banter for another few months?

 

I have the biggest mouth on Bob as given by my lengthy muzzle and you'd be surprised how amusing rambling at you is on a dull day on the Throne. How do you know you aren't already subject to the 5 lights? You live the reality we have imposed upon you whether you will it or not.  I don't need a carrot, the stick is working just fine.

 

Dragons don't call it 'whipping a dead horse'. We call it 'tenderizing the meat'.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
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.


×
×
  • Create New...