To be an enemy of the Order is to be inherently wrong.

[Electron Sponge]

Quiet, the intellectuals are talking.

Parroting the nonsense said by Vladimir or Ivan Moldavi is not intellectualism. In fact, it is the opposite of intellectualism.

If you could only realize how stupid you look to them right now. A useful idiot, a dog looking for approval from an uncaring master.

[Chickenzilla]

Count is not a member of NATO government and does not necessarily speak for the alliance. At the same time, he is not insulting or flaming our allies and generally speaks in accordance with our overall strategy. Just because we do not raise public opposition to his essays, doesn't mean we aren't watching. These have all been mostly academic and philosophical dissertations, and we do not discourage any of our members when they wish to speak their minds.

How many times has the argument been made that every member speaks for their alliance. Government or not, he is the voice of NATO, as are you.

[mythicknight]

I lol'd hard.

[Northrend]

Parroting the nonsense said by Vladimir or Ivan Moldavi is not intellectualism. In fact, it is the opposite of intellectualism.

If you could only realize how stupid you look to them right now. A useful idiot, a dog looking for approval from an uncaring master.

We you sponge.

Yes, in all seriousness, do any of you actually think that the NPO gives a damn about anything other than their own nations?

[New Frontier]

This ought to come as a bit of good news for Vladimir. He doesn't even have to write essays anymore! I mean, who wouldn't want someone stupider, more hated, and really just less capable in general to do their work for them.

GG Junk!

[Ejayrazz]

No offense, but I can't take this seriously. You are in NATO, preach about your own alliance, this just seems to be an attempt to kiss $@!. Hopefully I am wrong, but I am unable to acknowledge anything you have written merely because this is pathetic. I am sure you will try defending yourself, but NPO should preach this, not you.

Sorry for the disrespect you may find in this post, its not my intentions, but really mate...being 'right' is subjective. Might doesn't make right. You can kill me, you can nuke me, but it doesn't make actions right. Being right is subjective.

[Unko Kalaikz]

I only have the time to discuss core counter arguments so I wont get to all of you.

Your essential argument boils down to nothing more than 'might makes right' and 'fear Pacifica' – perhaps a recipe for survival but not one for truly living. Coming from a non-Pacifican it is particularly sad, epitomising the 'follow the leader' approach that causes such problems in politics.

I don't see it as a problem at all, the world such as we live in now has been peaceful and allows the vast majority of nations of most alliances to reach their potential without fear of random chaotic conflict.As Vladimir's paper The Outward Spiral noted:

Many theories have been advanced to explain this peculiarity, usually basing themselves on non-existent cultural changes, inventing concepts like 'total victory', 'playing to win' or 'global despots'; but these ideas are based on flawed or incomplete views of history. The tell-tale signs advanced for the idea of moral decay have been present throughout every epoch, and culturally alliances have not changed significantly – survival remains central, causing treaty-webs to build up and threats to be removed as efficiently as possible.

Most nations are lead by leaders with the right idea in mind: advancing their self interests, at its core including survival. The best way to survive and thrive is to cooperate within the "Pax Pacifica" we enjoy, and with most nations doing this a great level of peace, sophistication and stability is reached... a mass escape from the barbarism of the state of nature.

How many times has the argument been made that every member speaks for their alliance. Government or not, he is the voice of NATO, as are you.

Ah, new strategy I see, trying to get NATO to silence me. I've noticed that my membership in NATO really bothers you guys.

Count, don't get me wrong because you spoke a lot of sense. But the truth is real peace does not come from unipolarity. Unipolarity on digiterra, Pax Pacifica as you called it, was the cause of no less than 4 different massacres before a global war tore that asunder. Slowly but surely many alliances suffered the same fate, sometimes based on vendettas, sometimes using horrible excuses and sometimes to even advance certain people amongst the ranks. If you call the last 18 months in digiterra "peace" then you would be delusional. The only reason a more global war did not occur is because it becomes a much harder task, as was seen in WW5.

Bingo.

It is not, though. Current intel has pointed to large fractures within such a Global Civilization.

"Secret intel" has no place in public debate. If you have it, show it, otherwise it is irrelevant. Did you know I have intel that the rumors going around is part of a Pacifican strategy to disappoint Vox?

As for opposing forces, they, too, can be Civilizations.

Not if they do not advance their national interests, including survival, or remain at or below the threshold of nations found in the state of nature.

Although I use the term "civilizations" to describe individual groups of nations, alliances or blocs that collectively advance their self interests and are above the chaos of the state of nature, I really prefer using "civilization" as a concept. So, the Continuum is Civilization, while none, or Vox Populi, is not.

Civilization itself will never fall so long as the majority of nations advance their own self interests and have survival as a motive (the natural and proper thing to do).

Then the New Pacific Order is wrong. because WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back then, they opposed the entire damn world and lost.

Did they lose? By what measure?

They took on a massive enemy in an inevitable clash and survived, I'm not sure that could be called losing.

[Chickenzilla]

Ah, new strategy I see, trying to get NATO to silence me. I've noticed that my membership in NATO really bothers you guys.

There is no strategy. Back in the day, alliances would get called out for a two day old member posting the wrong things because they are representing their alliance. You said you are not a reroll so you should know nothing of this. I'm just here to help you out.

[Unko Kalaikz]

No offense, but I can't take this seriously. You are in NATO, preach about your own alliance, this just seems to be an attempt to kiss $@!. Hopefully I am wrong, but I am unable to acknowledge anything you have written merely because this is pathetic. I am sure you will try defending yourself, but NPO should preach this, not you.

I have no reason to defend myself for publishing my own thoughts. And, I have no reason to "kiss $@!" because I am not looking for favors from the NPO. Sorry you find it too pathetic to debate.

Sorry for the disrespect you may find in this post, its not my intentions, but really mate...being 'right' is subjective. Might doesn't make right. You can kill me, you can nuke me, but it doesn't make actions right. Being right is subjective.

Subjective views of right and wrong are outside the parameters of this essay or Francoism... because each individual has their own opinion. Instead I try to build the most objective vision of "right and wrong" possible, based on material conditions rather than voodoo or the way you were "brought up" as someone said.

[Unko Kalaikz]

There is no strategy. Back in the day, alliances would get called out for a two day old member posting the wrong things because they are representing their alliance. You said you are not a reroll so you should know nothing of this. I'm just here to help you out.

I don't think NATO has to fear being called out by Vox.

[Northrend]

Did they lose? By what measure?

* Waves Hand *

NPO is never wrong. NPO never makes mistakes. Move along.

[Unko Kalaikz]

* Waves Hand *

NPO is never wrong. NPO never makes mistakes. Move along.

It doesn't take the force to realize that NPO, while losing that tactical conflict, managed to survive and rebuild.

[Mogar]

To be an enemy of the Order is to be inherently wrong.

Recently I have invoked a certain level of hatred and anger by saying the following:

While the logical mind will be able to grasp the truth of these words almost immediately, there are those lured by the deceptive grasp of idealism who denies the individual so imprisoned the opportunity of logically processing the statement -- and instead sends them into a spiral of emotional backlash and denial. It is my hope to rehabilitate those affected by this disease of dogs, and educate them in the proper ways of Francoist thought.

so either you are a francoist or you are wrong? Sounds like old school Christianity to me, believe what I say or else I'll hurt you.

Any opponent of intelligence might attempt to construe the quoted statement as a reference to morality and "right vs wrong." Aha! You criticize Vox Populi for endorsing moralism yet preach it yourself!

Not so. By "inherently wrong," we do not allude to moralistic misconceptions as our besieged friends do. Rather, we are referring to a more objective means of measuring correct conduct (the basis of Francoist theory).

I will not burden you, the reader, with an analysis of material conditions (Vladimir has covered this extensively) and will instead skip to the steak of the plate. By objective measures, science has determined some basic principles of the state of nature and the world we inhabit. Perhaps the most important premise is that conflict is generally undesirable and inhibits the realization of potential of a given nation or alliance, and that reducing undesired conflict allows the ruler to advance the interests of his nation (as determined scientifically in a materialist sense).

this section doesn't really contain anything so I'm not going to respond to it.

By this, we can say that it is in the interests of the nation to grow (infrastructure, technology, and wonders, for example). These are all actually means of power (the ability to influence others) as well as security. The two are related, because with power (whether militarily, politically, charismatically, or otherwise) you can secure the advancement of your nation, or reach your nations potential. So, a nations potential is met not only by increasing his countries level of power at the national level, but also his own influence abroad (further advancing his nation and the nations of his allies).

Although perhaps initially this seems cold, the reality is that with most nations following this natural tendency to advance their interests, the tendency of cooperation becomes more and more visible -- which is why we see longer and more prosperous stretches of peace (aka the Pax Pacifica). From a humanistic sense this growth of civilization can be seen as highly beneficial to the citizens of the various nations involved in this mutual effort at cooperation.

The problem with this section is not everyone plays this game to peacefully grow their nation, some people enjoy war, and wars honestly keep this game alive, because it gets your alliance members active and happy.

In terms of natural selection on the international level, we see clear stratification with the passage of time as the most qualified, stable and intelligent nation rulers float at the top of the developing global civilization(s), while you see the most abject failures at the bottom of the muck (vox populi, U-FAIL, flying tigers, etc). Thus, the people who control alliances like NPO are at the very top of their game (and their success of course earns them legions of haters, largely failures sitting at the bottom of societal stratification).

This is incorrect as all you need to do to be successful is sign a bunch of treaties and embed yourself into the web, intelligence has nothing to do with it, however should you design scripts and other such features for the game, you can significantly improve your own alliances organization which does help in large scale conflict, but has never been tested in a war in which the Order is outnumbered, so whether or not it would actually have any effectiveness remains to be seen.

Conflict continues to, and always will exist, but the conflicts become smaller and smaller in nature, and those who have proven themselves as worthy of being at the top of civilization (via the trials of time and proven competency) will always continue to prevail. This is inevitable and no matter the efforts of the failures, will always be the case.

wars have actually gotten much grander in scale as opposed to the earlier great wars, so this assumption is incorrect, as well as wars have changed to not just defeating your enemy, but completely removing them from the game, a la Illuminati, GOONS, NAAC, LUE, and others.

Which leads back to the original point made: To openly conflict with the Order, or to oppose Civilization as a whole, is to be in the wrong. It means you have not correctly chosen the right steps to advance your nation, which is your duty as leader. It means you have set yourself up for failure, because no matter your intelligence you will never be competent enough to defeat the combined minds and strength and decency of civilization.

What if Civilization(in your essay I took this as a group of alliances) doesn't want the Order in charge anymore?

By merely taking that action, you have failed and done wrong. This is probably not your fault, as you have been deluded by emotions or "ideologies" pushed by confused shysters or vengeful nation leaders. Your idealism has and will betray you, and has shackled you into bonds far stronger than NPO can do. Because no matter who you blame, all actions and decisions you have made are your own.

isn't Francoism an Ideology? so following your logic simply believing in Francoism is betraying yourself, unless you're getting back to the old school christian believe me or i'll beat you?

To liberate yourself will require that you cast aside your chains of moralism and idealistic foibles, and think with a logical mind. To remember that your goal and your duty is to advance your, and your nations and alliances self interests, and you can never do that while in conflict with civilization itself. Logic, and not emotion, is what sets aside man from the beasts.

what I get from this paragraph is suck up to the strongest alliances or else they'll hurt you so you cant win cybernations

The Order will likely be the pinnacle of civilization for months and years to come. Even if they fall, all that will occur is a continuation of the march of civilization, and another great alliance or group of alliances will replace them, of exactly the same nature. Peace and prosperity will be inevitable whatever the hiccups we face.

Embrace Civilization.

Some people like war now and then, and a more balanced treaty web, as well as some new precedents of not wanting to completely eliminate your enemy from playing the game would be better than "peace and prosperity", which just leads to stagnation of the game and losing a few hundred members a week.

[Ejayrazz]

I have no reason to defend myself for publishing my own thoughts. And, I have no reason to "kiss $@!" because I am not looking for favors from the NPO. Sorry you find it too pathetic to debate.

Subjective views of right and wrong are outside the parameters of this essay or Francoism... because each individual has their own opinion. Instead I try to build the most objective vision of "right and wrong" possible, based on material conditions rather than voodoo or the way you were "brought up" as someone said.

advance your nation, which is your duty as leader.

Incorrect. My objective is not to advance my nation, but rather fight for what I believe in. With this, it shatters everything else you stated, like stated, the essay is flawed.

[Northrend]

It doesn't take the force to realize that NPO, while losing that tactical conflict, managed to survive and rebuild.

The NPO managed to survive because of incompetent alliances like the Optional Defense Network showing mercy on an enemy that deserved none at the time.

[Unko Kalaikz]

Incorrect. My objective is not to advance my nation, but rather fight for what I believe in. With this, it shatters everything else you stated, like stated, the essay is flawed.

If your subjective desire to fight "what you believe in" leads you into conflict with the interests of your nation, then you fail in your duties to your nation to one degree or another. Meanwhile, you decrease in power and influence (unless it is a calculated move to enhance it in the future and that plays out), and others who have a proper understanding of their role fill your old boots.

The world is almost a meritocracy that way:

Streets been watchin

And they don't blink

Sidewalk got ears

The pavement don't sleep

The fittest will survive

The weak just don't eat

[Mogar]

It doesn't take the force to realize that NPO, while losing that tactical conflict, managed to survive and rebuild.

the coaLUEition was nice enough to stop fighting for only an apology, and other than that white peace, which was one of the only times that happened in CN, since then the Order has put some stunning terms on alliances they've fought, GATO still has a viceroy over a month after they had to keep one(and this war was started because chris kaos re rolled, and GATO was intelligent enough to not advertise this once they found out so they wouldnt get rolled, and then got rolled anyway), MK had to turn out more tech than they actually had, GPA got the same terms and didnt even nuke them to begin with, NPO learned from the CoaLUEition's kindness(not unlike seerow's kindness from animorphs actually) and used that knowledge to win every conflict after GW1.

If your subjective desire to fight "what you believe in" leads you into conflict with the interests of your nation, then you fail in your duties to your nation to one degree or another. Meanwhile, you decrease in power and influence (unless it is a calculated move to enhance it in the future and that plays out), and others who have a proper understanding of their role fill your old boots.

Did you really just say that fighting for your own morals and values is failing as a nation ruler because you might lose your infra or tech? your stats have nothing to do with anything, as long as you have a nation, you're a nation ruler, how well of a ruler you are doesnt depend on your stats, as Ivan Moldavi showed us(when he deleted I believe he had around 15kns?, he refused to be aided, NPO's banks had better slots to fill than his and he didnt want the aid to be wasted on the top brass while the normal members went without.)

Edited February 16, 2009 by Mogar

[Unko Kalaikz]

The NPO managed to survive because of incompetent alliances like the Optional Defense Network showing mercy on an enemy that deserved none at the time.

If the ODN was competent it would have eliminated that, and future, threats in exactly the same manner NPO has advanced its interests. So even if your alternative history happened ODN or some other alliance would just be the alternative to the NPO we have now, earning your hatred.

[Azaghul]

Did they lose? By what measure?

They took on a massive enemy in an inevitable clash and survived, I'm not sure that could be called losing.

They surrendered and had a net loss of political and military influence. Their main enemy (LUE) came out of it with more political influence than before. How is that not losing? Just because you survive doesn't mean that you didn't lose. If survival is all it takes to win, than NPO has lost every war in the past two years where their enemy didn't disband.

[Unko Kalaikz]

They surrendered and had a net loss of political and military influence. Their main enemy (LUE) came out of it with more political influence than before. How is that not losing? Just because you survive doesn't mean that you didn't lose. If survival is all it takes to win, than NPO has lost every war in the past two years where their enemy didn't disband.

I'm not going to debate who won or lost that war, I don't know enough to judge all the circumstances. But it is reasonable to conclude that NPO may have planned to lose that war, since it was inevitable, and strategized to use the time afterward to rebuild and consolidate themselves while the allies farted around. iirc, NPO didn't seek that war in any case.

[Anu Drake]

How many times has the argument been made that every member speaks for their alliance. Government or not, he is the voice of NATO, as are you.

Thank you for pointing that out, let me clarify. Yes, Count is speaking as a member of NATO and thus we are responsible for his actions. As such, if he made disparaging comments about those that we are friends with or if his statements were presented as official policy, I would have a very different approach to it. As it has been so far, Count has been voicing his opinion, a right that everyone here has. Since it has generally conformed to our foreign affairs outlook (overly simplified as NPO good, Vox bad), we have no objections.

Just because its not the way I would go about things (this bickering is pointless in the end) does not mean it is not entertaining. Its good sometimes to see someone posting in support of those things that the rest of the opinionated community tends to rail against.

[Mogar]

I'm not going to debate who won or lost that war, I don't know enough to judge all the circumstances. But it is reasonable to conclude that NPO may have planned to lose that war, since it was inevitable, and strategized to use the time afterward to rebuild and consolidate themselves while the allies farted around. iirc, NPO didn't seek that war in any case.

Tygaland nuked duffman, so yeah, they kinda did seek out the war, since they started it.

[Nintenderek]

I had to try hard to not laugh while reading this (OOC: Because I was in class) but when I read it again later, trust me, there will be many laughs.

[Azaghul]

I'm not going to debate who won or lost that war, I don't know enough to judge all the circumstances. But it is reasonable to conclude that NPO may have planned to lose that war, since it was inevitable, and strategized to use the time afterward to rebuild and consolidate themselves while the allies farted around. iirc, NPO didn't seek that war in any case.

Yes, they "planned" to lose a war. How much sense does that make?

In any case you yourself stress focusing on appealing to who has the most power at the moment, not looking towards the long term:

The OP title says

To be an enemy of the Order is to be inherently wrong.

It does not say:

To be an enemy of the Order will be inherently wrong.

An analysis of the future is beyond the scope of this essay; it only deals with objective analysis of material conditions as they exist today.

So the NPO opposed the dominant forces at the time and so they by your own arguments were therefore "inherently wrong". That's the logical conclusion of the arguments you are making.

[Bob Janova]

For someone to have such a shallow understanding of politics and such a shallow motivation in how he runs his nation is amazing. I will no longer bother to comment on your threads as you have no substance behind the walls of words you like to put up to divert people away from your vacuousness.