A Truth in Advertising Version of the Introduction to Francoism

[ChairmanHal]

OOC. You stepped clearly OOC and force me to do the same to address it. That's the first problem with doing this. You've really derailed your own thread. If you want to pursue the line of thought in your first paragraph, fair enough, BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE.

Steady there, Geronimo.

Rather than go with a point-by-point response here I'll simply leave it at this:

1. The allusion to the avatar was in no way a reference to you or anyone at Nordreich. Indeed, the individual who created it has since retired it and I thank him for doing so. While I know he did not intend to offend anyone, it was in very bad taste and I think it said something about him IC/OOC that rather clearly he did not mean to say.

2. OOC: This is a thread about a pseudo political philosophy as practiced in a nation simulation game. Like it or not, a brand of Fascism known as "Nazism" was a part of the history of Planet Bob and members of that failed political movement called the old Nordreich, along with some other alliances, home. As such, comparisons with that failed political philosophy are in bounds.

3. Propaganda can and has masqueraded as art. The sorts of images employed say something about alliance and the individual that chose them. That's pretty much been true during the entire run of Planet Bob.

Oh and...I like Wagner. Don't think I qualify as a Nazi though.

[Swiper]

Really, both Stalin and Hitler followed Hobbes' Leviathan as autocratic rulers, not subject to the will of the people. However, the Stalin and Hitler relations do have more commonalities with NPO because they are RL, such as the "comrade" situation, quasi-social mobility, the "comrades", desire to consolidate and centralize power, and creation of "satellite nations" (Q, 1v). They aren't the same, of course, and NPO's not terribly interested in genocide. Really, you can make a case that most historical autocratic governments are like NPO.

I would debate how fully Stalin or Hitler followed Hobbes model of the Leviathan but that is a completely OOC topic. Nevertheless, neither of those two had anything called a Body Republic, which does bear a suspicious similarity, in name at least, to the Hobbesian idea of a "body politic."

Just sayin', in case the names matter.

[Comrade Goby]

Hmm this Francoism seems legit. I like it.

[Thistledown]

I would debate how fully Stalin or Hitler followed Hobbes model of the Leviathan but that is a completely OOC topic. Nevertheless, neither of those two had anything called a Body Republic, which does bear a suspicious similarity, in name at least, to the Hobbesian idea of a "body politic."

Just sayin', in case the names matter.

True, I'm not going to pretend to know a ton about Hobbes except mostly the basics. But I would say NPO gets certainly gets some of its influences from Stalinism and fascism, as I and others pointed out previously.

[Mathias]

ChairmanHal, you're not Vladimir. How can you know what Francoism is?

Francoism (n): A system of belief as defined by Vladimir's latest essay.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Mathias

[Doitzel]

I can write you a theme song, if you'd like, Captain O! I'll just have to have your autograph, though...

Nahh...but I do feel sorry for him. He was part of the ruling oligarchy. The leaders of the one true civilization. He not only drank the kool-aid, he asked for seconds.

He is the CN version of Guy Montag. He did everything he was told to do and then one day he accidentally grew a conscious. When the leaders of the one true civilization condemned him to roam the wilderness for ever, he vowed to destroy them. Not because his opinions had changed regarding us barbarians, of course.

Even now he mocks me because I had the gall to point out his hypocrisy. His hate makes me feel...accomplished.

Hatred is not the Jedi way! There is something in there about combating ignorance, though...

But carry on! My character has survived attacks from much more knowledgeable and skillful wordsmiths than yourself. Also, it's conscience, not conscious. Not sure how I was "doing everything was told to do" if I was unconscious!

[Vladimir]

I'm not sure which is worse, the knowledge that people have such a vulgar understanding of Nazism, Communism and Hobbesianism; the cringe of watching said people try to sound like they have a concrete grounding in said political theories while thoughtlessly nodding to each other's gibberish; or the irony of being labelled 'anti-intellectual' while the most sophisticated attacks on my writings remain unfounded, half-baked and long-since debunked maxims repeated ad nauseum.

I yearn for a Hayek, a Kautsky, or even a Popper, and all I get is a Groucho. Yawn.

[Moridin]

Nahh...but I do feel sorry for him. He was part of the ruling oligarchy. The leaders of the one true civilization. He not only drank the kool-aid, he asked for seconds.

He is the CN version of Guy Montag. He did everything he was told to do and then one day he accidentally grew a conscious. When the leaders of the one true civilization condemned him to roam the wilderness for ever, he vowed to destroy them. Not because his opinions had changed regarding us barbarians, of course.

Usually when you are trying to smear someone with clever literary references you compare them to the villain, not the hero. Good try though!

[Eric Cantona]

World Affairs is VERY clearly IC. Stick to it.

[Tygaland]

I still believe the following picture is the best definition of Francoism:

[Goldie]

ChairmanHal, you're not Vladimir. How can you know what Francoism is?

Francoism (n): A system of belief as defined by Vladimir's latest essay.

This should have been the OP, this is the true definition.

[mhawk]

I still believe the following picture is the best definition of Francoism:

It's still warmer than Tygaism.

[TehChron]

It's still warmer than Tygaism.

I would think the image in his avatar is an accurate portrayal of Tygaism, that strikes me as more like Polar-ism, or something.

[Triyun]

OOC: The first problem I have with this piece is that while Francoism was clearly inspired by Bolshevism, it was inspired in another game (I hope I'm unsure if I am using the right terminology for the forum, if I am not I apologize to the mods). In this other universe there was a much greater emphasis on role playing and developing political ideologies. Neither, Stalin, Franco, or Hitler existed in that universe or this one and thus a large part of this is irrelevant.

IC:

The New Pacific Order does not discard allies as easily as you would like to claim. FAN betrayed the NPO, the former members of the NAAC government have testified as such. They were hardly friends of the NPO, so there is little reason to doubt they were not being honest. You use examples like IRON additionally. I do not know where you are under the impression we still don't have a good friendship with IRON. We do.

Secondly I would point out the the NPO is not totalitarian to its members at all. It offers its membership a type of community that they can choose to be or not to be in. If I or anyone else wanted to, we could leave the NPO and go to an alliance that fits our ideals better. I simply do not believe in the Cyberverse one can make an argument about the amount of input members have in an alliance is a valid international issue. Because of freedom of movement, democratic choice is always at work. Some elect to have less "freedom" for the sake of other things, their choice should be respected as much as any other members.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

The New Pacific Order does not discard allies as easily as you would like to claim. FAN betrayed the NPO, the former members of the NAAC government have testified as such. They were hardly friends of the NPO, so there is little reason to doubt they were not being honest. You use examples like IRON additionally. I do not know where you are under the impression we still don't have a good friendship with IRON. We do.

Do you care to comment on your failure to notify many of your allies prior to attacking OV, hence violating no insignificant amount of treaties? Also, please keep in mind that you betrayed FAN, twice, out of fear, not for vengeance of prior betrayal. Also, please remember last summer's clash with your own brothers, in which efforts to broker peace were half-assed at best.

[D34th]

It's still warmer than Tygaism.

This is our regent and his girlfriend.

[Lonely]

What amuses me is that nobody has pointed out that the so-called tyranny of freedom- the constant fear of attack in the state of nature- is easily overcome by use of peacemode. Indeed, that is precisely what Admin intended it for. Thus, it is not necessary to join the New Pacific Order at all, rendering much of Vladimir's writing irrelevant.

But I could write an essay on all of Francoism's flaws and I frankly do not have time right now. [OOC] Perhaps after Christmas sometime. [/OOC]

[Vladimir]

One could point that out, but in doing so they'd be making a superficial reading of said writings. The point is not that one can be physically attacked, but that conflict -- and its potential -- prevents one from achieving their potential. Thus I criticise electoral democracies for simply 'shifting the war to a different sphere', even though the alliance may provide complete protection from attack.

[Lonely]

If there is no threat of attack, then how, may I ask, does the existence of conflict prevent one from achieving one's potential, outside of an alliance?

[OOC] I also think that you shouldn't take it upon yourself to define people's ambitions when people play this game for many different reasons. [/OOC]

Edit: clarification

Edited December 20, 2009 by The Lonely Man

[Triyun]

Do you care to comment on your failure to notify many of your allies prior to attacking OV, hence violating no insignificant amount of treaties? Also, please keep in mind that you betrayed FAN, twice, out of fear, not for vengeance of prior betrayal. Also, please remember last summer's clash with your own brothers, in which efforts to broker peace were half-assed at best.

I've already commented on how strongly I disagreed the failure to notify the allies before on numerous occasions. Our government has also apologized to those allies and we consider the matters now between our former allies and ourselves.

As for FAN, mpol himself has stated I believe that our suspicions about FAN the first time were correct, NAAC has stated our suspicions about FAN were correct, there is a mountain of evidence supporting the justification of the First War. Anyone who does not believe the first war was a justified one has their head in the sand. The second war, I personally feel went on too long but was also justified in its beginning in that FAN was in major violation of its peace terms. After the first war there was actually a lot of admiration within the NPO of FAN, I do not believe our leadership then would go to war purely for that reason.

As for Polar, retrospectively, attempting to broker peace talks at all was a mistake in my opinion. I do not believe we should have done what we did, but I also don't think we should have pressured our then allies about the peace terms they gave Polar.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

As for FAN, mpol himself has stated I believe that our suspicions about FAN the first time were correct, NAAC has stated our suspicions about FAN were correct, there is a mountain of evidence supporting the justification of the First War. Anyone who does not believe the first war was a justified one has their head in the sand. The second war, I personally feel went on too long but was also justified in its beginning in that FAN was in major violation of its peace terms. After the first war there was actually a lot of admiration within the NPO of FAN, I do not believe our leadership then would go to war purely for that reason.

It's fairly common knowledge that the second VietFAN was planned well ahead of time. When a man admires his enemy, and recognizes his potential, he will respond accordingly, and the only way to keep FAN down was to attack them. And although FAN was no ally at the time, when you break your word once, it's never valid again.

[Vladimir]

If there is no threat of attack, then how, may I ask, does the existence of conflict prevent one from achieving one's potential, outside of an alliance?

[OOC] I also think that you shouldn't take it upon yourself to define people's ambitions when people play this game for many different reasons. [/OOC]

Edit: clarification

To your original question, I would suggest these two chapters: The Two Worlds of Freedom and From Freedom to Civilisation.

To your revised question (specifying 'outside of an alliance'), I would contend, as I did when The Meaning of Freedom was first posted, that one cannot achieve their potential out with the confines of an alliance:

"[T]he state of nature is much more than simply a constant challenge to the security of the nation.

I would suggest that for the vast majority concern over the protection of ones nation is what clouds the mind upon initially entering the state of nature, and it is not until they enter a sovereign alliance environment that their potential in other fields becomes apparent. But it is correct to say that it is possible that they can come to this realisation without being a part of a sovereign alliance. However, even if this were the case, they could not act on it while in a state of perpetual conflict with every other nation, since cooperation is necessary in order to achieve any civilised feat. There can be no 'culture of one'; there can be no banking when the nation is in ruins or trapped in peace mode; there can be no diplomacy without the backing of alliance; and so forth. The state of nature is a state of conflict not just in terms of direct military action, but also in terms of social and political conflict."

To your third question, [sidenote: in my opinion 95% of the [ooc] tags in this forum could be removed if people just worded their sentences slightly differently], the primary point I would make is that the creation of a system allowing the freedom of potential makes no demand about what said potential is -- it could be in any field from journalism to military command; from economics to contrarianism.

Ah ha!, I hear you reply, but what if it is my ambition to live outside of such a system -- to beat my head against a wall or die in a ditch. Perhaps it is, and as far as it does not threaten my security you are welcome to your ambition -- there is no demand that everyone exist within a single system (in fact I explicitly attack the idea and support the opposite). However, I would also contend that there is a difference between subjective ambition and objective self-interest -- though the two often align. Francoism explores the latter.

[Bob Janova]

Re FAN: The first war was started by FAN attacking an NPO protectorate. There really isn't too much doubt about the blame for that one. The second war would have probably been justified considering the number of violations (though they were never confirmed by an impartial authority), except for the fact that the terms explicitly said that individual violations were not justification for a second alliance war. I'm not sure what that has to do with Francoism though.

What amuses me is that nobody has pointed out that the so-called tyranny of freedom- the constant fear of attack in the state of nature- is easily overcome by use of peacemode.

Peace mode stops a nation from achieving its potential just as effectively as direct war, in the long term. Even I can see that's a very shallow understanding of the purpose of protection.

[ChairmanHal]

I'm not sure which is worse, the knowledge that people have such a vulgar understanding of Nazism, Communism and Hobbesianism; the cringe of watching said people try to sound like they have a concrete grounding in said political theories while thoughtlessly nodding to each other's gibberish; or the irony of being labelled 'anti-intellectual' while the most sophisticated attacks on my writings remain unfounded, half-baked and long-since debunked maxims repeated ad nauseum.

I yearn for a Hayek, a Kautsky, or even a Popper, and all I get is a Groucho. Yawn.

I yearn for the day that you actually manage to pen something that speaks the truth to your masses....in under 5,000 words. Perhaps that day may come, but I doubt it.

You compose deliberately verbose essays that logically run circles around themselves. Ultimately they offer no real proof to any of your claims of superiority, nor do they offer any sort of original thought. They may make you sound intellectual to Pacifican masses, but they do not stand up to genuine critical analysis, however you want to hand wave such analysis off as so many words. Declaring the outside world filled with ignorant savages doesn't cut it either.

The times demand a new world view, one that openly questions previous methods and philosophies. Those who insist that they are the one true bastion of civilization, or one true anything will be discarded or left behind.

Edited December 21, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Vladimir]

critical analysis [...] The times demand a new world view, one that openly questions previous methods and philosophies.

Absolutely! Critical analysis! Deep questioning! Methodology! Fantastic! I love all that! Now, where is it?