Lacuna Populi

[Shodemofi-NPO]

I just noticed that this is "Volume I." This seems to suggest that there will be more. My life is now complete.

No one wants you in this thread, you apparently don't want to be in this thread, which begs the question, why are you in this thread?

[Unko Kalaikz]

Schattenman's "essay" seems a rehashing of Mobius 1s discussions about "global despots" so I'm not going to spend alot of time in that area. The most interesting essay was MegaAros' one:

Anti-Imperialism aka "Voxism"

As you have no doubt noted by now, Pacifica and Vox are two organizations that are vehemently, ideologically opposed to one another. Our philosophies being no exception. While Mobuis_1 attempted to unite our two outlooks under Francoism, he ultimately perverted Francoism in ways unimaginable, and skewed the idea so much so that it would be the most ridiculous thing ever published.

I've studied the works of Mobius 1 along with some of the works of Vladimir and Doitzel/assorted Voxians, so I'm going to chime in here.

It seems to me that Mobius 1 struggled to pull Vox's ideology from primitivist and usually contradictory and arbitrary thought schemes, into a coherent ideology that is basically a splinter of the existing, proven francoist ideology. It seems the entire source of his altered version of francoism for Vox involved defining "self interests" differently, as being closer to national self determination rather than mere survival. I cannot say if he was genuine or a charlatan, but his work I think was a decent strategic counter to Vladimir's criticisms in his essay Despotic Primitivism: Idealism in Decay.

His works are a good deal more rational in my estimation than some of the bile published by Vox's that appeal more to emotions and vague concepts of "honor" and "freedom" rather than clearly defined logical arguments, which is what Vladimir addresses in that essay.

No, Vox has its own philosophy, one that is entirely on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Will we finally see a clear, coherent and concise essay detailing this ideology?

We have read tons of works which refer to “Francoism” a philosophy which deals with the absurdity of the nation existing within the state of nature, and thus, why nations must rid themselves of the natural, anarchic, state. In essence, the philosophy’s main point is this: If you want to build up your nation, join Pacifica, since if you do not, you will be tech raided, not have guides, etc, etc.

That isn't the point at all. Although Vladimir of course would like you to do that, the point of Francoism is to provide a materialist (and not spiritual, or emotional, or "Voxian") analysis of the world. Any alliance, government or even nation level ruler can use these principles to advance the interests of his nation.

The Francoist mindset is that a perfect world may be created if all nations withdraw from the state of nature, join under the Emperor of the Order, and then, proceed to build up their nations. Then, through use of mutual protection, these nations protect one another from any and all outside force. Of course, in the perfect Francoist world, there is no outside force, as they have all joined Pacifica, or at the very least, allied with them.

There is no "perfect world" in the Francoist mindset. The francoist mindset involves making the correct decisions to advance the interests of your nation, or the nations under your alliance government; and is also a scientific mindset meaning that emotions are minimized in favor of rational analysis.

If Francoism does indeed create the perfect world, suffering is eliminated. All nations will build up, and will keep building up. The non-existence of threats will not deter the building of nations. As they build without challenge, they will reach incredible heights. 20k infrastructure, and more will eventually be reached. All nations that have the ability to keep building, will build up to these levels. All nations that continue to exist will reach levels that were formerly unimaginable. Newer nations will begin at low levels, but with even a slight resolve, will grow to those unforeseen heights.

Francoism is not a religious front or worldwide jihadist cause. It is of course open to those willing to embrace or study it, and it's eeebil intellects are willing to guide those who take an interest in it along, or even debate it. Francoism is not a global conspiracy, it is merely a way of measuring the world materially.

HOWEVER, I certainly endorse the world you describe, although it is far too unrealistic. Still, we have seen a great freedom of potential for many, if not most, alliances (and almost all nations) during this era of fruitful peace provided by those you hate.

But this growth will mean nothing. These stats will mean nothing. Without the fragility that formally existed to challenge this growth, without an outside force to actually challenge the nation, the stats become meaningless. There is no reason to have them other than an empty feeling of compensation for having existed for as long as you have. An one hundred year old man with no actual accomplishments, as it were.

You are assuming the only accomplishments a man can make arise out of strife. The wise man takes joy in the growth of a tree rather than the shedding of an enemy's blood. Shedding blood is only done when absolutely necessary. Thus the man of peace will grow a great garden fighting only to defend it, and will never hunger or thirst, while the warlike man will forever be engaged in fruitless conflict.

And which is a greater accomplishment, partaking in the random violence, or lending a hand to end it?

Happiness, art, triumph, glory, and strength, can only be achieved via suffering. We are happy when we overcome an obstacle. We create art out of our suffering. We triumph over challenges, and receive glory. These obstacles then add to our strength, for what does not kill us, only serves to strengthen us. Polaris is clear proof of that. Pacifica and Polaris post GWI, was clear proof of that.

You have yet and will not overcome the obstacle you have set up for yourself. Yours is a hopeless and sad children's crusade.

Therefore, the first tenant of Voxism is that suffering must exist, and that preferably, it exists in equal measure to pleasure. The creation of super-hegemonies to counter suffering, are nothing but limiters to this goal.

Although the emocentric line of thought is certainly interesting (does Vox practice cutting?), suffering for no gain is not something that should be applauded, but should rather be pitied.

This brings me to why Francoism itself is an intolerable philosophy. As we can see, Francoism is nothing but the maintaining of stats and of the nature of growth of nations. It precludes nothing more. It is a physical, meaningless existence. By creating, or attempting to create, a perfect world, Francoism destroys all meaning in two ways. First, it reduces to world to the physical strength of nations, and second, it creates limits which should not exist.

Francoism doesnt create anything, it merely analyzes. Francoism is an ideology of peace, where the sword is only used to promote and protect peace. How terrible is that?

Therefore, instead of focusing on nothing but their physical existence, the nations of Vox, or nations following Voxism have the responsibility of putting ideals first, before physical existence. In doing so, Voxism nations refuse to enter the Social Contract that is Francoism, and thus, forcibly create an opposition to that of the Perfect world.

This is not to say that Pacifica doesn’t create suffering. No, it does indeed inflict suffering on those that are much weaker than it, with the intention of removing those from the world entirely, OR, as we saw with Legion, forcing them to side with Pacifica, thus adding to the creation of the perfect world. Pacifica creates suffering as a means to the end of ending suffering. This end must be avoided at all costs.

It should also be noted that this suffering doesn’t exist in a method that could threaten Pacifica. It does not exist in equal measure to pleasure. This in turn still allows Pacifica to act with net benefits achieved, which will slowly end suffering as we know it.

Therefore, for the sake of this world to maintain its meaning, we must act. All of us must act. Our physical well being of our nations is irrelevant. If we have no meaning, is suicide not permissible? If we have no meaning, then why should we continue to live? So, for the sake of our existence, we must rebel.

Life in itself is rebellion.

Again, you fall into the trap of seeminly glorious, charged speeches with little meaning. It may influence your impoverished commoner, but you will never accomplish anything without the support of the intelligentsia.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Beauty]

Who will win the war? Will their be a winner? I guess this war will only be won when one side ceases to exist...

[King Srqt]

You dropped the ball on the title but the essays were good.

[bkphysics]

Who will win the war? Will their be a winner? I guess this war will only be won when one side ceases to exist...

That's what is so funny and ironic. As long as neither side 'gives' up and ceases to exist, they are both victorious. lol

Hell, even FAN has remained victorious for some time

Probably wasn't a good idea to rehash the GW1 discussion a while back for it seems to have provided a way to redefine victory.

Regardless, to the OP, thanks for the contribution and reads.

[Geoffron X]

I'm trying to convince myself that you're not seriously arguing that because Vox didn't take over the entire Red senate, we didn't outclass NPO in the senate.

You didn't need to take the entire senate, just a bigger part than we had. You couldn't.

[Schattenmann]

It sounds much better if you call it lagoon of the people. Aaaah to swim in that warm clear blue water again, pick some pearls from the sea bottom, fetch some coconuts from a proud palm, tan on the beach... I wonder what the Latin is for "hula skirt"?

Meet me there later.

I'll be Chris Atkins, you be Brooke Shields.

You didn't need to take the entire senate, just a bigger part than we had. You couldn't.

I'll work on the assumption that you only read that part that you quoted.

Vox Populi only needed 1 senate seat to achive its goals (success) in regards to the Red team. Because NPO defines the Red team as its territory, even by conventional standards of success all Vox needed to do was take one seat. Also due to NPO's stance regarding the Red team, all NPO needed to do to fail was to be unable to dislodge Vox Populi, which they could not (and did not). You and soem IOs are the only people on the planet that don't understand or acknowledge this, and I'm not going to lay it out for you again.

[checkers6676]

I'll be Chris Atkins, you be Brooke Shields.

I'll work on the assumption that you only read that part that you quoted.

Vox Populi only needed 1 senate seat to achive its goals (success) in regards to the Red team. Because NPO defines the Red team as its territory, even by conventional standards of success all Vox needed to do was take one seat. Also due to NPO's stance regarding the Red team, all NPO needed to do to fail was to be unable to dislodge Vox Populi, which they could not (and did not). You and soem IOs are the only people on the planet that don't understand or acknowledge this, and I'm not going to lay it out for you again.

But you see, Vox Populi currently has 23 members, NPO has 911 members. So NPO didn't "lose" according to the mechanics of the game, and Vox didn't "succeed" according to the mechanics of the game--Vox still got pushed down and out, and NPO still has the member count and strength count they had before you ever did get a senate seat. Any claims by Vox that you "won" by getting a single senate seat in Red team is simply a pathetic attempt to feed the delusion that Vox ever was or ever will be important.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

I always thought the word lacuna meant 'gap' or 'missing in structure'. :S

You are correct, but without suffering, there exists no method to create a struggle.

Replace method with 'reason' or 'call' and it is golden.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Alfred von Tirpitz

[Schattenmann]

But you see, Vox Populi currently has 23 members, NPO has 911 members. So NPO didn't "lose" according to the mechanics of the game, and Vox didn't "succeed" according to the mechanics of the game--Vox still got pushed down and out, and NPO still has the member count and strength count they had before you ever did get a senate seat. Any claims by Vox that you "won" by getting a single senate seat in Red team is simply a pathetic attempt to feed the delusion that Vox ever was or ever will be important.

Ok, game mechanics.

The day before Vox Populi formed, NPO had 3 senators.

3 days after Vox Populi formed, NPO lost the election in one senate race.

After that first win, kingzog became an incumbent in the election after that, and the NPO candidate became a challenger

The NPO challenger lost the next election.

Kingzog won that election. (because more people voted for kingzog than NPO's third candidate [not total NPO votes across three candidates]--game mechanics)

Then it happened 3 more times (or more, each incumbent win was fun and thrilling but admittedly I didn't count them)

The goal: Take a senate seat for giggles. Outcome: Success.

"Oh, damn, what if we did this every month?" New goal: Keep winning. Outcome: Success.

"Okay, we should move to Yellow team now" (meanwhile kingzog deletes his nation). Move to Yellow: Success.

NPO incumbent success in the other two seats is irrelevent and not a success "over" Vox, because Vox was not running three Red candidates, just one, who always won.

NPO cannot have "pushed" Vox Populi out of the senate or off the team. We* know that they did not because kingzog was never defeated in a senate election, while NPO was defeated in 4 or more, and "game mechanics" do not allow the NPO to set the team color of nations that they do not personally control (*"we" being the rest of the world, not just Vox, excluding some hardline ignorants [that's plural not a typo]).

Sadly, NPO is left with two problems by our move to Yellow and kingzog's deletion: Massive cases of senate blueballs and an bruised ego over the whole affair creating a need for over-compensation. IF kingzog had not deleted his nation, then maybe NPO could have beat him in an election at some point in time. IF Vox had not moved to Yellow, then maybe we would have run another senator. But neither is the case, and you cannot make arguments based on what your tea leaves or IOs tell you "most assuredly would have happened."

Edited February 4, 2009 by Schattenmann

[enderland]

Does someone have a link to Vlad's essay about Great War 1?

I am not certain where that is but feel that it would be nice to have as reference considering he and Nintenderek used the same logic in both their respective essays (Vlad in that one, Nintenderek in this one).

[Vladimir]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...p;showentry=411

I did not use the same logic as Nintenderek; Nintenderek just had a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument. Read my responses in this thread for details on that.

[Hasin]

All I can think of now is Vox as the cast of Laguna Beach.

[enderland]

If the side that is actually winning the war then agrees to pull out at the desperate requests of the losing side, what do we call that? Humanitarianism? Perhaps a strategic withdrawal would be more apt. But a strategic withdrawal in these material conditions does not offer the same negative connotations as we have come to take from it. In a strategic withdrawal here there is no ground conceded, nothing lost. If the objectives have been taken as far as they can be then a strategic withdrawal is the only sensible option and cannot be considered a negative action.

Bolded - Vox was "winning" their war; they had a senator that the NPO was unable to dislodge. Their removal of that senator was no different than the NPO's allowance of peace for LUE, as you reference in that essay; it was done purely by Vox in this case, NPO in the case of GWI.

Italicized - if a strategic withdrawal does not mean defeat, then Vox has not been defeated. It seems the most common "vox lost" logic is that they no longer hold a senate seat like they once did, but you yourself believe that a strategic withdrawal in no way represents defeat; therein lies the crux of the problem - if NPO did not "lose" or suffer "defeat" in GWI because they chose to withdraw then it is illogical to use that as a means to say Vox lost. Either Vox/NPO both did not lose their respective wars, or both did lose them.

Underlined - as many of Vox has said in the past, they achieved their objectives; they got a red senator and remained there for several senate elections. Their objective was taken as far as it could be taken, and their strategic withdrawal cannot be taken as a negative action.

As an aside too, using your definition of goals from earlier in the work (while in the essay you appear to not believe that to be an adequate method for determining victory) it is also clear that Vox has not "lost" and has "won" several of its battles with NPO. The purpose of the movement has been achieved through reaching certain objectives.

[Unko Kalaikz]

As an aside too, using your definition of goals from earlier in the work (while in the essay you appear to not believe that to be an adequate method for determining victory) it is also clear that Vox has not "lost" and has "won" several of its battles with NPO. The purpose of the movement has been achieved through reaching certain objectives.

I think the problem is Vox has named for themselves only tactical goals, like winning the senate seat, without any true strategic purpose. So they can certainly claim victory in their various tactical objectives (it's easy to do when you set the bar low, like "moving to yellow." LOL). However they have not named any strategic long term goals or explained why they are victorious there.

So they will try to label themselves strategically victorious by picking their "victories" from tactical engagements.

[enderland]

I think the problem is Vox has named for themselves only tactical goals, like winning the senate seat, without any true strategic purpose. So they can certainly claim victory in their various tactical objectives (it's easy to do when you set the bar low, like "moving to yellow." LOL). However they have not named any strategic long term goals or explained why they are victorious there.

So they will try to label themselves strategically victorious by picking their "victories" from tactical engagements.

Why would an intellectual movement (which I believe one could say is the nature of Vox) be so highly concerned with tactical victories?

Their goals are to change the way people think. Every thread on these forums for the most part degenerates into a Vox thread, and what is surprising to notice, is that it is not only Vox members who initiate this, often enough it is people completely "unconnected" to Vox itself. That would appear a victory of sorts to me on 'their realm.'

[Unko Kalaikz]

Why would an intellectual movement (which I believe one could say is the nature of Vox) be so highly concerned with tactical victories?

Their goals are to change the way people think. Every thread on these forums for the most part degenerates into a Vox thread, and what is surprising to notice, is that it is not only Vox members who initiate this, often enough it is people completely "unconnected" to Vox itself. That would appear a victory of sorts to me on 'their realm.'

One day they are a revolution, and the next an "intellectual movement" lacking intellectualism? So you admit even strategically they have shifted down their goals from overthrowing the "power structure" to changing the "way people think?"

Maybe that would work if they were not utterly defeated intellectually and forced to resort to subjective nihilism as their "ideology." Unless their goal is to change people into being destructive nihilists, which takes out some of the nobility of their "cause."

Edited February 4, 2009 by Count da Silva

[Vladimir]

My logic for "NPO did not lose" is that we were winning militarily. The section on strategic withdrawal is simply to dispel the myth that strategic withdrawal is synonymous with defeat. That is to say, not every strategic withdrawal indicates defeat, but it isn't to say that every strategic withdrawal (if that's what you want to call Vox's senate candidate deleting his nation) indicates victory.

Vox's objective was and continues to be destruction of the ruling bloc and the creation of a 'fair' world (first through international law, now through 'balance'); the senate campaign was merely a part of that -- the attack on Vox that they lost their senate seat is to demonstrate their impotence, not to speak to the wider picture. A comparison there might be my attempt to get an inactive nuke heavy nation back into the fight against the coaluetion: I achieved that objective and got him into the fight, dealing a good amount of damage to the enemy, but my success in this is irrelevant to the wider picture. Regardless, as I have already pointed out, objectives had very little to do with my definition of victory. No. My logic for "Vox lost" is that they have been militarily slaughtered.

[enderland]

My logic for "NPO did not lose" is that we were winning militarily. The section on strategic withdrawal is simply to dispel the myth that strategic withdrawal is synonymous with defeat. That is to say, not every strategic withdrawal indicates defeat, but it isn't to say that every strategic withdrawal (if that's what you want to call Vox's senate candidate deleting his nation) indicates victory.

Vox's objective was and continues to be destruction of the ruling bloc and the creation of a 'fair' world (first through international law, now through 'balance'); the senate campaign was merely a part of that -- the attack on Vox that they lost their senate seat is to demonstrate their impotence, not to speak to the wider picture. A comparison there might be my attempt to get an inactive nuke heavy nation back into the fight against the coaluetion: I achieved that objective and got him into the fight, dealing a good amount of damage to the enemy, but my success in this is irrelevant to the wider picture. Regardless, as I have already pointed out, objectives had very little to do with my definition of victory. No. My logic for "Vox lost" is that they have been militarily slaughtered.

If winning is removing the ability of your enemy to cause significant damage to your nation(s) then that is correct; Vox has lost (well I guess there are many in Vox who would disagree with that but effectively right now, they have lost).

[KingSuck]

I really don't see how Vox can argue they are winning this war. I won't deny that you have had your fleeting successes, but they were a while ago and none of them were really that amazing. What have you done since then?

It took a red senate seat.

Your taking of a red senate seat was by far your greatest achievement, but where is that senate seat now? And please don't tell me that you just decided to give it back.

It gained almost 300 members in under a week.

How many of those members have stuck around? Seeing as how there was a huge war going on at the time of your creation giving 300 angry members one last hope of getting back at the power structure really isn't that impressive. Losing 277 of those 300 members on the other hand...

It has formed a government from anarchy.

wow, great achievement there. I really don't see how the NPO stands a chance in this war, might as well surrender whilst they still have a chance.

It has infiltrated many of the TOP alliances, including most of the sanctioned ones.

And I'm sure those members have all been elected into government and got their hands on some groundbreaking intelligence

Their goal has been to eliminate us all along. But we are alive. Vox Populi still exists. They have not fulfilled their goals in this ideological war. As such, under their own logic, Vox Populi is winning this war.

I don't know if you noticed but it's impossible for the NPO to emliminate your nations, only the mods can do that. As such arguing that because you still exist you are winning is just awful logic. What can the NPO do? They can transform your nations into steaming piles of rubble, and I think you'll find that they are doing that pretty well.

[Unko Kalaikz]

If winning is removing the ability of your enemy to cause significant damage to your nation(s) then that is correct; Vox has lost (well I guess there are many in Vox who would disagree with that but effectively right now, they have lost).

It goes a little deeper than that, by crushing Vox's nations the forces of peace have ensured that Vox are and never will be an in-game threat to peace and stability. Our strategy involves minimizing the damage Vox Populi can do and we have been highly successful at this, it's a sign of how pathetic their front is that they must resort to nihilism as their ideology (because they are beaten by all objective measures, as well as intellectually) and live in the past gloating in their petty has-been accomplishments instead of looking towards the future.

Vox Populi is equivalent to a shadow, it can scare small children but all a shadow is is an absence of light.

[TruHartBrakN]

So Doitzel let me get this straight...

Because the NPO hasn't caused all of Vox to delete their nations and go away, you are winning the war? Interesting standards for war I must say. Congratulations, you are able to sign into your nations, collect and pay bills. Other than that, you have caused no real damage to the NPO aside from a brief stint in the Red Senate.

[bkphysics]

Has Vox stated they are winning the war or they have not been defeated? The two phrases are actually quite different.

If they stated they are winning the war, well that is left to interpretation as to what you deem winning and what you deem losing. If they simply stated they have not yet been defeated, then again, depending on your determination, they have not lost the war.

To me, a war is done when the sides surrender or are completely gone from existence. Neither of which has happened so indeed neither side has won anything. The battle continues much to the enjoyment of the rest of us.

[Louisa]

but all a shadow is is an absence of light.

Can there really be a shadow if there is no light?

(Did I just make a metaphor/simile/parable/some other literary/philosophical thing?)

[Unko Kalaikz]

Can there really be a shadow if there is no light?

(Did I just make a metaphor/simile/parable/some other literary/philosophical thing?)

Yes, everything would just be shadow.

Actually, it's fairly relevant to this discussion, because Vox seems to have put forth as their new ideology nihilism, which is basically a belief in nothing (sort of hard to conceptualize, but meaning life and this world is a void without any objective truth or meaning).