Jump to content

Implications of the Obvious


Stonewall Jaxon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Implications of the Obvious

Introduction

This brief essay, written by one who has studied several “ideologies” in our world, will hopefully clarify the true nature of the fundamental elements of our professional lives by expounding upon one obvious and unassailable truth. Implications of this fundamental truth apply to every facet of our mortal lives, most notably the concepts of alliances and honor.

Stating of the Obvious

The world in which we live is a place of constant turmoil, unending conflict, and ceaseless competition. As a citizen, or, more accurately, a competitor, each man in our world must endlessly seek to advance himself by any means necessary. If one does not seek to advance himself, then he is electively not a citizen of this world, and he is irrelevant as far as this ideology is concerned

Alliances

To understand how alliances apply to the Obvious, one must first examine the fundamental reason for the existence of the alliance. Essentially, competitors coming from another universe quickly realized the ability of a multitude to triumph over the individual, and the amassed groups came to be recognized “alliances.” Ideally, alliances operate under a unified strategy, or ideology. Though a variety of opinions within an alliance can be a positive attribute, when channeled properly, an alliance must always behave as a single, unified entity in our world’s ceaseless competition. Thus, an alliance is nothing but a competitor in the world, much as a citizen is a competitor, but on a larger scale.

However, some may wonder, if alliances are competitors by themselves, where does that leave the individual? The answer is simple: to further advance himself as a competitor, each individual must always strive to further the goals of his alliance. For the alliance to succeed, it must work as a machine, with each member fulfilling the role of a cog in that machine. Although it may seem to make more sense, as far as self-interest is concerned, to strive for “power” within an alliance, but that line of thought can injure the alliance, of which the individual is a part. Each man has his own role in an alliance, which is decided by his strengths and the places where the alliance most needs those strengths.

Honor

Somehow, through generations of propaganda from the various defeated entities in Cybernations history, the concept of living in self-interest has become known as “survivalism,” which is regarded as synonymous with cowardice. However, there is no real evidence to support the claim that to betray an ally in times of crisis is actually beneficial than an alliances’ well-being. In the mind of a logical competitor, to align, or combine his strength, to an entity infamous for deceit is utterly ridiculous, and those who choose to do so deserve the consequences for their folly. Therefore, the concept of betrayal is permanently lethal to one’s status as a competitor, without exception.

Selection of Allies

In accordance with previously stated implications of the Obvious, the selection of allies is crucial to one’s existence in our competitive world. Since each alliance in the world clearly operates under a specific strategy, or rather ideology, each alliance is surely convinced that their specific strategy is superior to all others, and allows them a greater chance of success. As such, when seeking to combine its strength with another, an alliance, in the spirit of ceaseless competition, must align with like-minded entities. When one alliances signs a treaty with another, the alliances, logically speaking, have their own self-interests at heart, and trust that the other alliance would suffer greatly from betraying the terms of that treaty. Thus, the two entities must always serve one another’s interests, but still purely for the sake of advancing themselves.

Conclusion

In the Sith Order, we have a saying that defines our ideology and existence in this world, and that is:

Peace is a Lie, there is only Passion

Through Passion, I gain Strength

Through Strength, I gain Power

Through Power, I gain Victory

Through Victory, my chains are broken

I shall set myself free

The connections from this credo to the aforementioned fundamental concepts is not hard to make. The concept of “peace” in this world implies that there is a time in which citizens cease to compete, and that, in our universe of ceaseless conflict, is illogical. Indeed, the most passionate of our world shall always prevail over the deceitful, and the strong over the weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting read. Just an important question ( at least to me):

Clearly you believe the strong prevail over the weak, but do you feel they have any obligation to help the weak then, or otherwise there is a logical, beneficial reason to help or guide them in any way, shape, or form? Or is that completely incompatible with a competitive nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly you believe the strong prevail over the weak, but do you feel they have any obligation to help the weak then, or otherwise there is a logical, beneficial reason to help or guide them in any way, shape, or form? Or is that completely incompatible with a competitive nature?

Indeed, the nature of competition is not charitable, unless of course, through helping another, one can possibly gain strength. That is why many large alliances adopt protectorates, in the hopes of someday acquiring a fiercely loyal and powerful ally to assist them as competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are protectorates the only instances you think can result in a net gain? Or are there other times where such gestures between a strong alliance and a weak alliance can be beneficial to the strong alliance?

Otherwise, a clear, succinct espousal of what I presume is the Sith philosophy.

EDITED: Sentence structure

Edited by Archon Daverin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are protectorates the only instances you think can result in a net gain? Or are there other times where such gestures between a strong alliance and a weak alliance can be beneficial to the strong alliance?

That is entirely dependent on the strategy of a particular competitor. It's not necessary everyone conform to one strategy or ideology. In fact, I consider te OP to be self-evident, which is why I titled it "the Obvious" rather than "[someone's name]ism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed,

to some extent it can be a better strategy for an alliance to back up a treaty that causes them to lose a war, then to back out. I for one feel a lot better about signing a treaty with another alliance who has proven that they are willing to lose wars for their treaty partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good short summary of how an amoral alliance operates, and a large part of the decision making of any alliance. There is more to life than constantly struggling up the slippery slope of power growth, though. Treaties are not always signed for strategic reasons, and alliance decisions are not always made to get one over on the competition – in fact that is a feature of the old world which it is good to be free of. Apart from the obvious examples of the neutral alliances, there are many treaty ties which are strategically poor but rich in personal ties: our own treaty with the inexperienced Ordo Verde which was at the heart of Karma, for example.

However, some may wonder, if alliances are competitors by themselves, where does that leave the individual? The answer is simple: to further advance himself as a competitor, each individual must always strive to further the goals of his alliance. For the alliance to succeed, it must work as a machine, with each member fulfilling the role of a cog in that machine. Although it may seem to make more sense, as far as self-interest is concerned, to strive for “power” within an alliance, but that line of thought can injure the alliance, of which the individual is a part. Each man has his own role in an alliance, which is decided by his strengths and the places where the alliance most needs those strengths.

That seems to be a post facto attempt to justify the NSO's structure to me. By consenting to remain a grunt in an alliance, instead of pushing for government there or in a different alliance, a ruler is failing to advance himself, and conceding irrelevance. He could have far more personal power in other places than as one nation in 300 that are led by a select few. The truth is that the world is not as competitive as you make out, and that the power games of the few rely on large numbers of non-competitive subservient nations with which they can project their power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems to be a post facto attempt to justify the NSO's structure to me. By consenting to remain a grunt in an alliance, instead of pushing for government there or in a different alliance, a ruler is failing to advance himself, and conceding irrelevance. He could have far more personal power in other places than as one nation in 300 that are led by a select few. The truth is that the world is not as competitive as you make out, and that the power games of the few rely on large numbers of non-competitive subservient nations with which they can project their power.

Challenge system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Challenge system.

Oh right, I forgot about that. I guess you can scratch the first sentence of that block you quoted if that really encourages internal competition. I still stand by the rest though, every alliance requires a lot of people who aren't interested in competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh right, I forgot about that. I guess you can scratch the first sentence of that block you quoted if that really encourages internal competition. I still stand by the rest though, every alliance requires a lot of people who aren't interested in competition.

Not really disputing that point, but using us as an example was pretty terrible. We do require unambitious folk, but we do our best to encourage competition among competent members.

Edit: Wait a second, you're saying that you made a broad assumption on something being a justification for our government setup when you didn't even know what our government structure is?

Edited by Chron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good short summary of how an amoral alliance operates, and a large part of the decision making of any alliance. There is more to life than constantly struggling up the slippery slope of power growth, though. Treaties are not always signed for strategic reasons, and alliance decisions are not always made to get one over on the competition – in fact that is a feature of the old world which it is good to be free of. Apart from the obvious examples of the neutral alliances, there are many treaty ties which are strategically poor but rich in personal ties: our own treaty with the inexperienced Ordo Verde which was at the heart of Karma, for example.

Ah, Moralism, the food of the foolish. Be weary of such folly, Mr. Janova, for those who see can manipulate the blind at will. You witnessed how the well-sighted individuals, popularly known as Vox Populi, twisted the masses of strength, seemingly unavailable to them, into following their lead by feeding them the folly of Moralism.

That seems to be a post facto attempt to justify the NSO's structure to me. By consenting to remain a grunt in an alliance, instead of pushing for government there or in a different alliance, a ruler is failing to advance himself, and conceding irrelevance. He could have far more personal power in other places than as one nation in 300 that are led by a select few. The truth is that the world is not as competitive as you make out, and that the power games of the few rely on large numbers of non-competitive subservient nations with which they can project their power.

In the Order, as my comrade Chron previously mentioned, we have a challenge system, so that the strongest always survive. This challenge system is an embodiment of my ideology, in which the alliance is improved through constant competition, and as such makes the alliance as a whole a better competitor. Of course, I, for example, would never attempt to coup Moldavi as Emperor because I would be doing foolish and unnecessary damage to the Order, and, by extension, myself.

Of course, you're right that individuals in every alliance do not actively strive for ultimate victory, but, for the purposes of this world, they are not expected to constantly struggle, but they are also somewhat irrelevant. They attempt to grow their nations, and as such compete in a sense, and if they were more dedicated to their careers, they'd likely compete just as much as any other citizen.

Now, whether it is more powerful to lead a 12-man alliance, or to be relevant in a world superpower, that is for the competitor to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...