A Review of Karmaism

[Ejayrazz]

The Hegemony's beliefs stem greatly from Francoism, which I will not even attempt to explain.

Yea, we hear that a lot, cause no one knows how to. Haha.

[Lyria]

Why must everything be an "-ism" with you people? Stop over-analysing a large group of people collectively saying "you're wrong" and mowing you down with a hot wall of lead.

OOC: Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself.

IC: Seriously I'm just tired of this stuff. The 'critical analysis' of people's motives doesn't work. Unless you're the one making the decisions, you're inferring and implying and making things up and it gets incredibly frustrating to read.

[arentak]

I disagree (Edit:with the OP.)

The Karma coalition is not "led" the way the Hegemony was "led by NPO". To call MK its leader would be wrong, more like a current spokesman.

C&G/MK might be the core of this coalition, but once Hegemony is gone, there is no reason to think MK will try to impose its will on all of Bob the same way the Hegemony did. Karma is a non-alike coalition of alliance with no reason to band together post-war.

There are obvious lines of conflict with the Karma coalition. You will probably see two or more factions form from within the alliances now warring Hegemony, and the survivors of Hegemony will probably join one side or the other(s), so we'll have a long summer full of wars.

As for peace, MK/STA has a long history of generous peace terms. The Grämlins Codex requires generous peace terms, at least of Grämlins. I'd say 90% of the alliances in Hegemony will get off easy. I predict NPO will not get a white peace. The fact they still insist they won GWI because the peace terms didn't require anything other then an apology almost guarentee something more will be required.

Karma != Hegemony

Edited April 30, 2009 by arentak

[ChairmanHal]

Behind every person, group of people, organization, or coalition, there are beliefs or sets of beliefs that dictate actions in a somewhat predictable manner. The alliances and blocs that we have grown familiar with here on Bob are no different. Each has moral codes and values that are all slightly distinct. Alliances and Blocs come together to form coalitions when these values and beliefs clash.

Ok...

Our current conflict, which I feel is open to comment now that we are starting to see the finish line, sheds light on those differences. For our purposes, there are only two sets of beliefs: those of the Hegemony, and those of the Karmalition.

Fell straight off the logic bus already. There are in reality at least 4 different sets of over arching beliefs systems in place (Francoism being one) and as you already stated, each individual alliances has their own belief system (aka "moral codes and values "), thus you have just contradicted yourself.

But let's play along for a moment...

The Hegemony's beliefs stem greatly from Francoism, which I will not even attempt to explain. I recommend reading Vladamir's essays (along with a healthy dose of the comments on them) if you are unfamiliar with it.

The "Hegemony" includes NPO and its treaty partners. Francoism is not the prevailing beliefs system of the vast majority of NPO's treaty partners--indeed I would struggle to come up with even a single example of one.

As it exists in practice, Francoism can basically be summarized by "The NPO will do what it can to preserve itself". Whether or not the great scholars of Pacifica will support that statement is soon to be seen in the responses to this thread.

They seem to manage to make it more flowery, but that would probably be the somewhat oversimplified bottom line.

On the opposite side of the conflict lies the Karmalition, led by the set of beliefs I will refer to as Karmaism until someone proposes a better term. I will attempt to construct an overview of these beliefs as they have been demonstrated to me and the rest of Planet Bob through the actions of the leaders of the Karmalition.

Oh boy...

We should begin looking at Karmaism from its inception, or rather the inception of Karma. Archon announced it with the following statement: "We are Karma incarnate, and we stand in solidarity here today to decree that this action [a declaration of war on OV during peace talks] shall not stand. You [Pacifica] will pay for what you have done" (Karma). It is quite evident that double talk, lies, and deceit are not a tenet of the Karmalition. They give people a fair chance, are impartial, and wouldn't do anything behind someone elses back. A particularly bad action would be to engage in peace talks in which you have no intent of giving peace.

Ok, the idea that people would engage in fair diplomatic dialog is older than Planet Bob...indeed is as old as diplomatic dialog. So is deliberate withholding of intelligence that you are obligated to reveal to treaty partners, something that several Karma alliances engaged in since last fall. Governments, whether they are here on Planet Bob or in RL routinely engage in double talk, lies, and deceit against those that they feel mean to do them harm or they judge to be not worthy hearing the complete truth. No Karma or Hegemony alliance is immune from this. Those deciding to start typing furiously to deny this assertion are encouraged to stop lying to themselves and others or go get yourself a drink pack, turn on your favorite cartoon channel and cool down, you're too young and naive to be here. That governments engage in deception is a given. What is also a given is that at times it is necessary. Those that engage in it unnecessarily and against those it calls "friend" can be judged harshly at times.

"But SirDelirium, I have read Moo's log dump and they gave the NPO a taste of their own medicine," you might say. Well, you would be right. In reality, Karma stands on the actions it stands against.

Read above. At times deception against those who are deemed an enemy is necessary. It does not necessarily reflect on whether or not the act is good or evil.

Another tenet held by the Karmalition states that EZI is wrong. I would say this makes them stand apart from the vast majority of the Hegemony and is a very noble thing, but I would be wrong. Directly preceding the war, several large alliances from the Hegemony added amendments to their charters prohibiting EZI and released their EZI targets due to public pressure.

Ever hear of the phrase, "too little, too late"? Not that EZI was ever a good thing, I am on record for having long opposed the practice. It could be quite successfully argued that what make Karma different is not that their practices are unique, but that they didn't have to change them to begin with...they were arrived at not because of public pressure but because they are simply the right thing to do regardless of public opinion.

One thing that sets Karma apart from the Hegemony is the ease of terms they offer to defeated alliances. This, as is plainly clear, is something they follow with the upmost attention. As of this point, I believe no alliance has had terms harsher than "You shall not re-enter the conflict". I would like to say that this is a major departure from precedent, although I am not confident NPO will get the same treatment.

Of course they won't. If they do, I wish to be reminded of these words and I will issue a formal apology to all the members of Karma. By tradition the first alliances to surrender in major wars get offered sweetheart terms in order to get them off the field quickly so that more forces can be brought to bear on the alliances that are the actual target of the war planners or because the forces tied up on one front are needed elsewhere because things aren't going so well on another. This is why keeping allies in line is critical during war. If they waiver and break, you will lose.

The last major belief of the Karmalition worth noting is the belief that the world should not be unipolar (or that no one Bloc should run the show). Even the name given to the opposition, "Hegemony", is a direct attack at this concept. How deep can this facade go? This is not a war to fight for freedom or soveirgnty. It is a war to fight for power. The fall of the NPO has been proclaimed across the land as the death null of one era and the beginning of another.

I would disagree here. Those that originally conceived of the plan to bring down NPO very much wanted a multipolar world. They felt that it would eliminate a major source of problems on Planet Bob, that being treaty induced stagnation. They may or may not be disappointed. Time will tell.

[Heyman]

Amidst the horde, a lone figure emerges, purposely singling himself out.

But why did it have to be this one?

Edited April 30, 2009 by Heyman

[Bob Janova]

There's no such thing as 'Karmaism'.

[shahenshah]

Karma can only be completely judged when all the cards are on the table and that will happen when and if the war ends.

[Paradigm]

I wont knock you for trying to add content - but will say its a pretty bad case of projection.

Karma is Karma.

[Aurion]

Karma can only be completely judged when all the cards are on the table and that will happen when and if the war ends.

Not even then. Most people will just stick with what they've thought the whole time already - the true judgment of this will only come with the next generation of leaders and players.

As to the original post, I'd say a C for effort is appropriate. You lose quite a bit of points for applying rigid ideology to alliances that are in many ways as different as night and day. On both sides of the war.

The only unifying strand that I think applies in any way to most of Karma is that a awful lot of people think that the Continuum-dominated world sucks enough as to take a chance on seeing what would replace it if they take action to alter things. And even within that, people want either something specific or things in general to change for any number of differing reasons. It's not possible to even try to analyze that, as there's a different take for every nation involved.

And of course, there's plenty of people (myself included) who are on the side we're on simply because that's where our friends are. Attempting to apply some sort of grand philosophical statement to the sentiment that you ride and die with your friends is kind of stupid in my humble opinion.

Edit: Trying for clarity.

Edit 2: Also, the coalition's name is Karma. Calling it the "Karmalition" is really quite stupid

Edited April 30, 2009 by Aurion

[NoFish]

Since you seem to be both confused and making broad, sweeping, generalizations, allow me to provide you with a "critical analysis" of GOD's motives in this war. NPO and TORN declared war on OV. A while ago we said that we'd consider an attack on OV and attack on us. There's no ideology in play here; we said we'd defend them, so we defend them.

Other alliances, I'm sure, likely have different reasons for being on whichever side they are and I, for one, won't presume to make assumptions about what they are.