A Truth in Advertising Version of the Introduction to Francoism

[zzzptm]

Certainly, there are many who hate anything you write because of their political side- it is the nature of this world. But you seem to attribute this blind judgement to the "other side", when it can of course be found in your own Francoist alliance. Look at TWiP vs. Tabloid Tribune, or even this very thread- the pro- NPO forces come out in defense of the Tabloid Tribune/Francoism en masse, while the anti- NPO members automatically attack it. It is hard to complain when blind allegiance makes up many of your supporters as well as detractors.

Thistledown states this very well. There is no true dialogue with NPO when it presents its views and then belittles all others.

As for my opposition to NPO's ideology, it's not blind. My eyes were open as I watched them commit their atrocities and then, finally, blunders.

Honestly, though, I was surprised when I discovered they were negotiating to peace out of the OV war and leave TORN hanging. Then when nearly all their allies bailed on them... it just shows what kind of relationship they had. It wasn't a matter of, "these guys are gonna be solid, brace for a hard war." It was, "wait, do they have anyone willing to defend them?"

As a hypothetical, consider you're in an alliance that's about to attack Polaris. As you do your NS calculations, which alliances can you count on standing and dying next to Polaris, even if you have 11:1 odds in your favor? New Polar Order has power beyond its NS because it has bonds of friendship that are stronger than steel. When the thermonuclear weapons fall, those bonds are unscathed. Even should Admin bring about the Great Resetting and we are all laid low in our humility, those bonds of friendship will yet survive...

... they survive not because Polaris threatens. They survive because Polaris loves its allies like the brothers they are.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=54849&hl= Read that, NPO. That's doing it right. What NPO has done and continues to do is not that and, therefore, is not right. It is wrong. When NPO can last a whole thread without resorting to some kind of imperious propaganda, then maybe it will have had changed. Short of that, NPO remains a vile joke.

Q: How many Pacificans does it take to bail on one of their closest allies in a time of crisis and need?

A: All of them, apparently.

[Doitzel]

Or Anthony ... But let's leave that for another time.

Yes. Let's.

[threefingeredguy]

I see no appeal in this unless you're trying to play as an evil character. If you are, good for you I guess.

[Earogema]

Don't know where you got that out of the completely justified attack on FAN, an attack which as was pointed out even mpol agrees was justified. Whatever floatsen das boatsen.

A lie eh? So we forcibly make people stay in the NPO? OK..... And comic gold? It seems your jokes are as lacking in humour as the rest of what you spew is devoid of intellectual or factual basis.

But then, can't expect much more from you, can we?

Wait, when did mpol ever say either attack was justified? I don't think he'd be the type to do that.

I can see him possibly agreeing with VietFAN 1, but not VietFAN 2.

[Kzoppistan]

3. Propaganda can and has masqueraded as art.

Yes, but can art masquerade as propaganda?

Overall, I another good topic by ChairmanHal.

I won't bother to debate the points, but I've read a number of essays by Vladimir and none of them impress me. I know mental masturbational BS when I hear it.

[Letum]

I must say, I'm tired of seeing such cliche collections of characterisations without any meaning in them beyond the general mood of dislike.

Perhaps this prevalence is a knee-jerk reaction from the "modern" custom of children having it instilled in the minds from a early age that democracy is inherently super-good and superior to everything else, and everyone who disagrees is a power-hungry dictator exploiting the people. I don't want to call it propaganda, but it has a small number of the characteristics of unofficial indoctorination.

It's amazing how thoroughly this manages to persist - when meeting with people of a different culture who do not share this same love their initial perplexity is often followed by a conclusion that such people must be brainwashed. When "democracy" is repeatedly thrown at faraway countries as a form of pannacea, yet repeatedly fails to bring about a substantial improvement, few try to think "why?".

Yet it is these same people who, when faced with their own domestic innefficiencies, become cynical and sarcastic. Politicians voting based on who proposes something rather than its merit causes no surprise. Making promises and never delivering? Expected. Indeed, the very term "politician" has come to be associated with dishonesty - yet the furthest that the mainstream will go towards critisizing the system as whole would be terming it a "lesser evil".

What is the benefit of democratic governance? Simply put, it is a control system on behalf of the voters. State Power groups are limited in their options, since they require some extent of voter support in order to hold power. That is all, and nothing more.

Certainly, in many scenarios democracy would have several advantages, in say, a fictional alternate world scenario (ooc: RL) where voters were further empowered by information transparency, educated judgement and security, a democratic government would be much preferable over a simple oligarchy with no control systems whatsoever. After all, corruption and self-serving are endemic to human society, and in the absense of such a control system the latter government would likely be abusive.

However, the critical mistake in the ideology is the assumption that democracy is the ONLY control system available. With that fallacious assumption, the world is immediatelly cast into only two possible options - a democracy where the government is controlled, and an autocracy where it has absolute power to fulfil selfish desires. White and Black.

This is silly, to put it lightly. There are numerous control systems out there, with varying degrees of efficiency. Indeed, democracy itself would not be that effective without mass education, free media and a relative absense of everyday violence - which is why, in our alternate world (ooc: RL) it has only emerged as a dominant form of government after all those preconditions have come to exist and where they are absent, "imposing" democracy has ended in chaotic messes.

One does not even have to look hard to see the simplest of control systems in our own Planet Bob: If a nation is not satisfied with an alliance, they leave. Certainly, there are a lot of "less active" nations that don't care much for alliance policies until they are dogpiled in a 3v1 fight, but much like voter apathy in democracies, it is the active nations that form an alliance's strength and their presense - or absense - determines alliance policy. Therefore, with the existence of this "democracy of the feet", it is very possible to have a non-republican system of government that does not "oppress their own people".

Despite what any individual may think of Pacifica, it is undeniable that it has been successful, and in a world where there is total mobility of population, not taking good care of your nations would have made any such success impossible. This does not imply that alliances that have not suceeded are automatically bad to their people - that would be a false conversion. Likewise, trying to claim that all Pacifican nations are ensnared in some grand illusion that robs them of the ability to use their freedom of mobility is ludicrous - all alliances in this world take their members from the same general pool - all people with broadly similar values, access to information, a certain level of education and a similar freedom from the threat of force. The worst possible scenario for a person here would be being ostracised and a paralysis of the ability of their nation to do anything. Not desirable, but it does not quite equate to the fear of being gathered up, sent to a gulag in a frozen wasteland, knowing that you will be worked to death and never see your family again.

Trying to conjure up that implicit image - which is what the Soviet comparisons and mindless repetition of the word "oppression" do - is simply false. Anyone who tries to draw such a comparison is either being dishonest for the sake of scoring a political point, or has never ventured far enough from their chair to realise what real pain and oppresion are like.

Having thus illustrated that control systems that replicate the benefitial aspects of democracy are in place and that bypassing them by force is not viable, one of the main thrusts of this attempt to demonize Pacifica (i.e the oppressive totalitarians angle) is discredited. No, we are not a representative democracy, and have no need or desire to be one. This departure does not automatically make us "evil" or "oppressive", nor does it mean some earth-shattering change in how we operate - the bureaucracy that manages day to day affairs in an alliance does not differ that radically from government to government. It merely seeks to offer a better alternative to social organisation - and it is undeniable that there is much room for improvement over the RL mainstream "elected republic" Take a look at the partisanship in most legislative bodies or the "smear tactics" of election campaigns - from lobbying to dishonesty, democracy is far too full of flaws. I will not make the claim that any system - including our own - actually touches upon perfection, but mashing together a collection of emotive (but ultimately insubstantial) words and comparisons to the popular archetypes of evil totalitarianism is just pathetic.

This topic, beyond just the op, is quite a collection of every negative stereotype glued together with the good old "bad archetype". It is an entertaining play of words, but in the end it is quite transparent ; it has all the standard "bad guy empire" traits of Western Culture - ruthless, no care for own people, treacherous, plotting world domination - the same old things that propaganda has featured since it was created. Ultimately, these traits are an exact antithesis of every single major value in that culture group - which ends up being very funny when you think about the context of our realm. But that doesn't matter; so long as "it" is "different" and "anti-us" "it" has to be shunned.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

~loads of stuff to read~

Hi, its your alliance, run it however you wish. People discussing, debating, trash-talking a philosophy/way of governance, adopted by an alliance on this planet is just that, discussions. If you feel that Francoism works for you, awesome, i am glad for you and your alliance mates. In that case however, it ought not matter what the critics or political analysts say about a particular "ism". Just go on, on , on your merry way.

For the record, i find debates about political ideologies and systems to be rather pointless, whichever system is being scrutinized. People always find a system that works for them, and that is as it ought to be.

Cheers.

[Letum]

Hi, its your alliance, run it however you wish. People discussing, debating, trash-talking a philosophy/way of governance, adopted by an alliance on this planet is just that, discussions. If you feel that Francoism works for you, awesome, i am glad for you and your alliance mates. In that case however, it ought not matter what the critics or political analysts say about a particular "ism". Just go on, on , on your merry way.

For the record, i find debates about political ideologies and systems to be rather pointless, whichever system is being scrutinized. People always find a system that works for them, and that is as it ought to be.

Cheers.

Let's take this example: two presidential candidates from different parties are debating against each other on national television in the run-up to an election. It is obvious that their "debate" will never be resolved (i.e, a mutually accepted platform reached), nor do they want it to. Yet, despite this, they are willing to put in considerable resources in making an argument, rather than going their own merry way. Their debate is far from pointless.

Certainly, I am my own man and can do whatever I want - and that applies to me, you, alliances, everyone. But we don't each live in isolated tropical islands. Life involves interaction - and whilst you should not let the view of others define you (if you want to be emotionally secure at least), it is not practical to go to the other extreme, and ignore those views entirely. I'm well aware that this is "just" a discussion - and I am "just" participating in it.

[Daemon]

Let's take this example: two presidential candidates from different parties are debating against each other on national television in the run-up to an election. It is obvious that their "debate" will never be resolved (i.e, a mutually accepted platform reached), nor do they want it to. Yet, despite this, they are willing to put in considerable resources in making an argument, rather than going their own merry way. Their debate is far from pointless.

But the point your quoted example is to influence the outcome of a final decision making point, an election. In this case there is not such junction. The argument is perennially between prevailing fashions but the populace will not be required to decide who is most preferred and thus the debate is indeed in this instance pointless. The only thing that counts is if alliance members vote with their feet. but so much of the CN population is in transit anyway that no-one would really notice if a few more people switched sides because of a political ideology discussion.