The Polysemes of Nativeness:
Two Fundamental Conceptions of Nativeness Unravelled and Compared
Two Fundamental Conceptions of Nativeness Unravelled and Compared
Written by Unibot.
“Any voice of dissent within their region is discredited by dismissing them as an agent of foreign powers. Furthermore, any who ask questions that make the ruling junta uncomfortable will find themselves with that same distinction. Similar to the Reichstag fire in Germany these actions are indicative of a group which is unable to justify its actions on their own merits and needs to resort to chicanery to avoid inflaming public opinion against them,” - Unistrut in “The Great Pacifican Lie”, The Politics of Invasion and Fear.
Introduction
As a defender, I know from experience there is a great intellectual urgency to be able to distinguish between natives and non-natives. Without this distinction being clear and resolute, the distribution of the Right of Self-Determination in any given founderless region becomes a very difficult and arduous process, since to assert a Right of Self-Determination assumes there is a community of peoples that ought to be able to govern autonomously over a region – if there is no way to distinguish these peoples from those who do not deserve to govern autonomously over said region then a Right of Self-Determination is ineffectual since no one claim is more valuable than any other claim over the region. When there is pure equality of legitimacy among property claims, this identifies a founderless region as public property, which, for all intended purposes, would be decivilianized chaos between competing regimes for governance.
There are those that may find the “sink or swim”/ “might is right” model-world I have presented above to be desirable, but for many others, including myself, a set of rules that civilianizes regions and protects the right of those who genuinely reside in a region to govern said region autonomously appears necessary on the basis that it (a) is intuitively right, (b) is conducive to peace and regional development, (c) acknowledges that individuals do grow attachment to their ‘home-regions’ which ought –out of universally applicability– derive a moral law to respect each home-region as belonging to one another to the same extent that any reasonable person would wish their own home-region also be respected as belonging to themselves and their community. For these reasons and for the purposes of this essay, I will reject the notion that the Right to Self-Determination is nonexistent in NationStates.
But once one accepts that the Right to Self-Determination must be upheld in regions, we return to the problem of determining who is a native and who is a non-native. A great deal of time and effort in the Pre-Influence Era was spent by moderators in determining Nativeness since the penalties under the Griefing rules were severe enough to cast significant importance on ensuring natives were identified as natives and non-natives were identified as non-natives. Moderators such as Cogitation, as will be discussed later, crafted and upheld legal definitions of Nativeness but there also arose political and casual definitions of Nativeness as players tried to legally separate long-term residents who possessed a significant claim for participation in the political and cultural activities of the region from those residents who did not. Following the Pre-Influence Era, the definition of Nativeness has been left open-ended for players to propose, discuss and debate amongst themselves which is the intellectual backdrop and context of this very paper.
Further Background: Regionalism and Cosmopolitianism
Before I discuss how to define Nativeness further, I believe it is necessary to explain what I mean when I write “Regionalism” and “Cosmopolitianism”. These are two terms I have constructed to describe diametrically opposed political philosophies in NationStates which determine what a player’s ideal conception of a region is and how they view the relation between themselves to the region. Since Regionalism and Cosmopolitianism are at the core of one of this paper’s central arguments, it would be beneficial for all readers to have a good contextual understanding of these two terms.
During the summer of 2012, I was doing research specifically on the former New Pacific Order that had ruled over The Pacific, The Pixiedance Regime of The North Pacific and the Alliance Defense Network. It struck me while reading some of the older posts from the Pixiedance era how much of a clear witch-hunt was occurring in The North Pacific with the target of the social phenomenon being members of the Alliance Defense Network. Obviously this occurred all of the time with the Alliance Defense Network, but how much this pattern of the phenomenon in practice followed the same characteristics of a conventional witch-hunt was striking in the Pixiedance case: the immediate public distancing from the Alliance Defense Network by individuals, the finger-pointing to direct suspicion from themselves to other more likely “sinners”, the increased speed and inquisitional nature of the trial system and a general increase in the level of paranoia, delirium and deception among residents. Although, in the Pixiedance case, the witch-hunt did not form naturally per se, it was mostly a consequence of Ivan Moldavi's influence over The North Pacific, therefore it lacked credibility and civilian responses varied. Traditionally, in repressive states where “outsiders” are shunned and cast out, it becomes natural for residents to hide some personal beliefs to avoid suspicion and develop their regional image into a patriotic character one can play – although this rarely satisfies the lack of comfortableness one has in such a community.
Shortly after this moment of inspiration, I drew comparisons between this incident and the culture of institutionalized patriotism that I would argue existed in all Post-August-Revolution Pacific Regimes to some extent, present-day 10000 Islands and witch-hunts of a similar nature that I have seen occur in my time while serving in feeder communities which would cast out members of The United Defenders League from their regions during public crises. I also drew a comparison between these circumstances and the various justifications that citizens in The North Pacific had for requiring World Assembly status to vote in The North Pacific’s World Assembly Regional vote. Some proponents of the tougher regional law were suggesting these non-World Assembly citizens were simply not trustworthy and had not proven their commitment to the region to deserve the ability to vote in The North Pacific. Overall, these connections led me to identify Regionalism as a political trend in NationStates. Regionalism shall be defined as a set of political values that emphasizes the importance of a strong and concrete regional identity, in addition to promoting patriotism and demonstrations of loyalty to the region. If given the choice between having ten contributing regional members whose loyalties are spread out across NationStates and ten committed regional members who hardly contribute to the region, a Regionalist would likely favor the latter over the former – commitment always take precedence over contribution.
Naturally, I began to think of what the opposite of Regionalism would be? The answer was personal and self-reflective, I believe I had understood it for quite some time but until I pitted it against a clearly defined antonym I had not identified it as a distinct ideology. My understanding of myself until this moment was essentially limited to knowing that I felt a feeling of solitude; I had just recently been cast out of The South Pacific as a grassroots movement had been spearheaded against The United Defenders League and I expected to be cast out of The North Pacific as a similar movement formed. I identified with Knights Errant from medieval chivalric romance literature – following an intransient moral law higher than any regional law and travelling between so many regions to assist where I could, my entire conception of a home-region or homeland was convoluted and perverted. I had regions where I was a citizen; I did my best to contribute to them. But was I a citizen in the same way citizenship meant to other defenders? Many of these defenders were fortunate enough to be citizens in staunch defender regions where they could openly be “defender” and proud of it, I doubt I ever felt the same sense of association, comfort and loyalty that they could feel when I spent a lot of my time as a citizen, hiding or distorting my personal beliefs to gain political credibility in primarily neutral or centrist political environments. When I thought of what could possibly be the opposite of Regionalism, I knew immediately I was an example of it – it would define who I was and it would define itself not in the negative sense (lacking an identifiable home) that I had come to feel, but in a positive sense (what it as an ideology had to offer people that Regionalism could not).
Cosmopolitianism is the term I chose to use to identify the opposite of Regionalism. It bears similarities in practice with Individualism (whereas Regionalism bears similarities with Communitarianism). Cosmopolitanism shall be defined as a set of values that emphasizes the importance of individuals within NationStates and rejects strict membership laws in regions on the basis that it interferes with the ability of individuals to contribute and participate. As previously stated, for the Regionalist, political capital is purchased with a specific currency: demonstrations of loyalty. Whereas, for the Cosmopolitan, political capital is purchased with a vastly different currency: demonstrations of capacity for contribution and talent. In the eyes of a Cosmopolitan, it is not enough that one is a long-time member of the region or has their main-nation in the region, one needs to have the ability to do something significantly contributing to the region before any serious variant of respect is deserved. Obviously, one can see where it could be predicted that Cosmopolitans and Regionalists would follow incompatible political trajectories doomed to clash in political environments: Regionalists taking up the position of the “Old Guard” or the Revolutionaries securing the independence of the region, and Cosmopolitans taking up the position of the new establishment challenging the “Old Guard” or the Political Elite in some cases – both groups, Regionalists and Cosmopolitans in constant conflict to secure political power and alienate the other group from political power.
It is a main contention of this paper that what definition of “native” a state formally or informally adopts is of great conflict in a regional community because one popular definition favors Regionalism and one popular definition favors Cosmopolitanism. How a state answers the question, “What is a ‘true’ citizen?” is central to the distribution of power in a region (whether it is more inclusive or less) and signals either defeat or victory for Regionalists or Cosmopolitans. Bearing in mind this basic backdrop, context and background, the issue of Nativeness shall be explored further in greater detail.
Two Fundamental Conceptions of Nativeness
Ask yourself, what is a “native”?
When drafting the World Assembly Security Council resolution, “Liberate Land of the Liberals” in January of 2010, I did ask myself this question and posed it to #equilism, an IRC channel for Equilism citizens. The definition that “Liberate Land of the Liberals” used was constructed by Whamabama and agreed upon by the members of the channel at the time to be the best available definition. I will return to the Whamabama definition later, since it should first be explained that there is a logical necessity to answer the question (“what is a ‘native’?”) in one of either two different approaches of defining objects. A negative definition of “native” would explain what a non-native is and then identify natives as everyone else who is not a non-native (thus using “native” as a catch-all phrase). Whereas, a positive definition of “native” would explain what a native is and then identify non-natives as everyone else who is not a native (thus using “non-native” as a catch-call phrase).
Whamabama, a notable cosmopolitan 1 , provided “Liberate Land of the Liberals” with the following well cited definition of a “native”:
A native is “a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force”.
The aforementioned definition is characteristically negative due to the use of “without”, since it could be formularized as simply “a native is not X”. Alternatively, the Whamabama definition could define a non-native as “a resident-nation with the intent to further the goals and aims of a foreign force” and define a native as “not a non-native” and achieve the same effect. A popular drawback to the Whamabama definition that is commonly expressed was first contributed by [violet], who suggested the inclusion of intent in the definition made determining Nativeness impossible 2. The obvious counterargument to [violet]’s argument is that, perhaps, who is truly native or not should remain relatively identifiable not absolutely identifiable. Viz. one must be vigilant for security threats and maintain developing opinions of the trustworthiness of resident-nations as information regarding individual’s beliefs, motivations and intentions expands exponentially (but never conclusively) in NationStates.
A more substantive objection raised to the Whamabama definition is that it does not go into more depth to describe a “native”. The definition makes no requirement for natives to be residents of a given region for a significant amount of time nor does it require natives to participate in their region or identify their region as their home-region. All that matters to the Whamabama definition is that one resides in the region and one is not there to further some foreign force – if one qualifies for those characteristics, one is defined as a “native” regardless of their potential distantness to the regional government, community and culture which some would argue is unacceptably shallow and inclusive for a definition of “native”. In general, any negative definition of “native” is going to run the risk of vulnerability to these counter-arguments since using “native” as the catch-all definition makes it more inclusive and open-ended. Ultimately, this paper will reject the need for greater exclusivity in the Whamabama definition but for those who are unsatisfied by the Whamabama definition for the reasons explained above, they may be more satisfied with a popular positive definition of “native”.
While game-staff and moderation struggled to deal with the issue of defining Nativeness and determining who was a “native” and a “non-native” to enforce the Region Griefing rule-set, Cogitation (a notable Game Moderator) provided a notable positive definition of “native”:
A native is any “nation that resides in the region long-term, where the owner of that nation considers that region to be home. [Whereas,] a "non-native" is the catch-all designation for any nations that aren't natives”.3
As Cogitation explains, “the "native" and "non-native" sets are all-inclusive and mutually-exclusive; a nation must be one or the other, not both, and not neither. Spies residing in a region long-term and working for an outside force are not natives. “ When someone asked whether puppet-nations could be natives of regions, Cogitation explained “Nativeness is a property of nations [not players], so if someone maintains two or more serious puppets as permanent or long-term residents of two or more different regions, then each puppet is a native of its respective region” . This is a slight withdrawal from the Cogitation definition, so perhaps the Cogitation definition would be better off to include “where the owner of that nation considers that region to be the home of said nation”.4
Nonetheless, the key characteristics of Nativeness in the Cogitation definition are long-term residency, identification with the region (considering it “home”) and commitment to the region (native has to be “serious” about being a resident of the region). The Nativeness “Test” is a much stricter set of conditions in the Cogitation model than the Whamabama model, since it is much easier to be defined as a non-native than a native in the Cogitation model whereas it is much easier to be defined as a native than a non-native in Whamabama model. This is a consequence of using a positive definition as opposed to a negative definition for Nativeness, before further expanding the conditions of the definition. It is the argument of this paper that Regionalists prefer Positive Nativeness and some sort of variant of the Cogitation model for determining Nativeness. Whereas Cosmopolitans prefer Negative Nativeness and some sort of variant of the Whamabama model.
This trend is predictable for many reasons, first and foremost because Positive Nativeness aligns with the political values of Regionalists: Positive Nativeness honours long-term residency, identification with the region and commitment – all characteristics valued by Regionalists. Thus, in theory, a state that uses Positive Nativeness in regional policy-making will construct a region that promotes and encourages a region more ideal to Regionalists, by ensuring that long-term commitment to a region is necessary to be recognized as native-residents since –a Regionalist would argue– without a strong division between native-residents and non-native residents there would not be enough motivation (or payoff) to justify committing to the region. Whereas Cosmopolitans will support Negative Nativeness because it, obviously, moves away from the Regionalist ideal state (which Positive Nativeness fosters) that seeks to alienate Cosmopolitans but also because Negative Nativeness in regional policymaking fosters a regional environment closer to the Cosmopolitan ideal by equalizing members’ commitment-based standing (e.g., how long have you been a citizen? Is your WA Nation in our region?) and distributing veneration on the basis of contributions (e.g., what have you done for our region? What can you offer as a citizen?) while distributing access to power more inclusively to all residents within a region.
There is a reoccurring political dynamic in NationStates Regional Politics that involves Regionalists and Cosmopolitans competing to edge their region’s state towards accepting or legitimizing either Positive or Negative Nativeness in every facet of their region’s policy-making. When a region clearly adopts the Positive Nativeness view in most policy-making decisions, this signals a clear victory for Regionalists and shifts the region closer to the Regionalist ideal state. Whereas, when a region clearly adopts the Negative Nativeness view in most policy-making decisions, this signals a clear victory for Cosmopolitans and shifts the region closer to the Cosmopolitan ideal state. There is no reason to suggest this dynamic will ever conclude or recede. Until this point, this paper has had descriptive and predictive value, but during the penultimate segment of this paper it is necessary to explore a prescriptive component. Thus, it shall be argued that Negative Nativeness is more preferable than Positive Nativeness, on the premise that Positive Nativeness poses more of a danger to society than Negative Nativeness.
A Rejection of Positive Nativeness
As it stands now, most Cosmopolitans subscribe to Negative Nativeness and most Regionalists subscribe to Positive Nativeness. Therefore, a rejection of Positive Nativeness that conforms only to the values of Cosmopolitanism is valueless, since, as previously explained, Cosmopolitanism lends itself to Negative Nativeness as opposed to Positive Nativeness anyway. A more powerful and valuable rejection of Positive Nativeness must reject Positive Nativeness on the grounds laid out by Regionalists – to convince even Regionalists that there is neither benefit nor security in subscribing to a doctrine of Positive Nativeness. This is a conclusion for most Regionalists that is, by right of their ideological stripes, counter-intuitive.
Grounded in Regionalist values, the following section will seek to reject Positive Nativeness on the basis that it is (i) impractical and (ii) less than ideal.
To explore how Positive Nativeness is impractical, let us first imagine the following scenario: blinded by a veil of ignorance as to who “you” are and shielded from knowing your talents, aspirations, experiences and knowledge of the game, you arrive in a region that welcomes you warmly and you spend several months as a resident in this region – your residency is very distant to the actual governing of the region and your connection with the region is apathetic and withdrawn. Eventually you come to learn that as a resident of this region, you have various rights endowed to you – the right of freedom of speech, the right to not be ejected and banned unfairly, various rights to participate in the government of the region etc. Likely, you would feel valued intrinsically as a resident of the region. Perhaps you would go inactive and remain distant from the region, while receiving the benefit of the rights endowed to you as a resident of the region. Alternatively, you may become more involved as a citizen. The decent and equitable treatment of all residents as “natives” (regional residents deserving of rights and privileges) bodes well towards making the latter more likely than not.
Alternatively, imagine a similar scenario with vastly different circumstances. Blinded by the same veil of ignorance, you arrive in a region that welcomes you ambivalently – you are treated warmly but also informed in a rather authoritarian manner that you must participate in X, Y and Z ways to deserve the various privileges of Nativeness. Your patience with this region is quickly diminishing as they expect investments of you immediately to be eligible for “privileges” which seem more like public liberties and goods every resident deserves on the basis of being a resident. Obviously, your departure from the region is about as proportionally likely as your growing frustration with the region.
As demonstrated in these thought experiments: Inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness has always fostered the probability of participation in any political system by the masses. Participation leads to commitment and loyalty to the region which is the virtue of Regionalism. But ultimately a community needs to initially deserve one’s commitment and loyalty for most to pursue commitment and loyalty, or alternatively, a beehive colony needs its honey. Furthermore, the most logical, practical and fair method for ensuring X recognizes Y as deserving is for Y to ensure it always recognizes what X deserves too. It is simply impractical and counterproductive for Regionalists to treat residents differently on the basis of some of these residents bearing the characteristics they want to encourage when this inequality undermines the potentiality of eagerness that fuels these encouraged characteristics imprimis.
Having explained why Positive Nativeness should be rejected for being impractical, it is obvious how Negative Nativeness (being more egalitarian) does not contradict the aforementioned test of inclusiveness whereas Positive Nativeness fails to perform in these regards. However, there is more to Positive Nativeness than simply impracticalness – Positive Nativeness also fails to provide an ideal environment, if we define an ideal environment broadly as a community that players feel comfortable to reside in and therefore, can maintain a reasonable desire for residency. When communities adopt Positive Nativeness it reconceives the community in a socially toxic conception that is suppressive, oppressive, potentially repressive and overall, unpleasant. Since when a social society defines “what is a native” based on a list of characteristics as well as expected levels of demonstrable devotion, then it becomes a matter of how well can any given member practice the art of dividing one’s self. There will always be ideas thought by members that may contradict the value-set prescribed by the elite in a state, it is thus valuable for members in these communities with entrenched Positive Nativeness to ensure that these thoughts remain private and not expressed publicly or otherwise these thought-dissenters may be thought of as outsiders. This is a form of suppression and is a notion as old as Orwellian Thought-Crime; I do not pretend to have discovered it. If the penalties for one’s private thoughts are great enough, this suppression may increase in extent to become repression: actively relegating one’s private dispute with the public affairs of the region to psychological non-existence.
It should also noted that the value-set prescribed by any state’s elite need not be particularly consistent – what one is required to express, support, think and do to be thought of as a “native” may change at the simple whim of the elite. One day, one may be regarded as a native, the next day, the expectations change and one is an outsider by the general expectation of the elite. Thus, those who remain as insiders in a state with enforced Positive Nativeness are not only the most suppressed or repressed individuals but also the ones most responsive to changing parameters and expectations. Being an actor in a social system based on Positive Nativeness, is not simply a matter of being one of the greatest actors or actresses in a reoccurring play, but being one of the greatest actors or actresses provided an unclear and ever-changing social script.
Additionally, when a state adopts Positive Nativeness, it not only leads to suppression or repression but also oppression and greater disparities of power in a given political system ruled by the state. This occurs because as the conditions for being considered a “native” get tougher, so do the conditions for being trusted with insider knowledge, political capital and, of course, power. Therefore, as a general rule, one can usually identify regional communities that have Positive Nativeness entrenched into their political policy on the basis of their centralization of power into the hands of key trusted insiders. It is not within the scope of this paper to argue the intrinsic good of democracy or oppose autocratic systems, except to suggest that the centralization of power into the hands of key trusted insiders bears a risk: with power comes responsibility, when power is shifted and centralized to certain insiders there is also a corresponding set of responsibilities that can be ignored, rejected or otherwise too overwhelming or overbearing to be fully satisfied.
The distribution of power can be dually centralized when customs or laws are fluid, changing and otherwise not enforced consistently or empirically. As explained before, Positive Nativeness does not prescribe that expectations of “natives” need be consistent, therefore custom-based or law-based sources of authority are not always completely derivable in communities that have accepted Positive Nativeness. In these particular states, charismatic authority and leadership, cults of personalities and the obligation to devote one’s self to these individuals are fostered to replace the emphasis on customs or laws. Some common examples of charismatic authorities and cults of personalities in NationStates include Francos Spain, Grub and Gates the God who all governed in obviously regionalist regions (i.e., The Pacific, 10000 Islands, Gatesville) and emphasized Positive Nativeness in the process of policy-making. For example, when laws were inconsistently applied in the Francos Spain era of The Pacific it is no wonder that the real devotion of Pacificans was not to the Civil Code for Uniform Justice and Order in The Pacific but to Francos Spain himself; inconsistencies are profuse in Early Pacifican Law: even Francos Spain admitted the enforcement of Code 1006 was “very selectively enforced”5 and Sir Paul once praised the freedom of dissent allowed by Code 1001 in the very same post that he noted the Political Accountability statutes (2000 series) were “selectively enforced on nations who are particularly annoying in their slanderous banter against the NPO”6. Although The Pacific invested legal authority to the High Judge of The Pacific, 10000 Islands and Gatesville invested that authority for determining guilt and the distribution of justice to their founders (The Gatesville Police Department acted as a “police” for civilians, but ultimate power was reserved for Gates the God 7).
This is not to suggest that any of the stated authorities were necessarily inefficient or morally wrong – once again that would be beyond the scope of this paper, but it will suffice to comment that although all of the listed “cult” heroes were very successful in NationStates precisely because of their effectual management of societies (and the people in them), any society that adopts Positive Nativeness and the centralization of power that comes with it, by doing so, increases the risk of distributing monolithic power to individuals who may not have the ability to satisfy the reciprocal responsibilities.
Concluding Thoughts
At the beginning of this paper, the question of how to determine who is a “native” and who is not a “native” was posed. It has been explained that there are two common “formulas” used to answer the question of how to determine Nativeness, namely the use of positive or negative conceptions of Nativeness. It has also been explained that there is a reasonable tendency for Regionalists to pursue Positive Nativeness and Cosmopolitans to pursue Negative Nativeness.
The final argument explored and laid out in this paper essentially is that everyone (regardless of political alignment) should reject Positive Nativeness and by logical extension, use a variation of Negative Nativeness. For Regionalists especially, this may seem counter-intuitive, but it has been argued that the outcome of Positive Nativeness is neither impractical nor ideal. Thus, I suppose the final question that Regionalists (if they agree with my premises and conclusion) must ask themselves is whether Negative Nativeness and Regionalism can be reconciled? Whether there are alternative (more inclusive) methods for promoting loyalty and strict regional identities that do not involve the uneven distribution of liberty and acceptance? This is a question that is not easily answered and I do not have a constructive answer at this time to provide in this paper. Reflection upon this question should be one of the main considerations of contemporary regional policy-making in NationStates, especially in communities that try to pursue the ideal conception of a region among Regionalists.
About the Author
Unibot, as depicted above, is a huge NationStates fanatic. He began his career in NationStates on May 25 2008. He since has passed the most World Assembly resolutions by one author, been commended by the World Assembly Security Council and emerged as a notable figure in NationStates Gameplay as the founder and head executive of the major defender organization, The United Defenders League. His first NationStates essay, An Analysis of NationStates Generations, originally posted on March 2009, garnered overall positive reviews. In real life, he is a senior undergraduate studying Political Science and Philosophy at the University of Waterloo, who enjoys playing guitar and creative writing.
Unibot also would like to dedicate this paper to his girlfriend for putting up with his huge time commitment to NationStates. She is too wonderful to justly describe, so he will just stick to Regionalism and Cosmopolitanism etc. instead.
Notes
1. For example, Whamabama scored “-1 / -7” on the Gameplay Alignment Test.
2. “I am fine with these definitions so long as players can provide me with brain scans to verify what they did and did not intend!” attributed to [violet] from Feb 19, 2010; Taken from http://forum.nationstates.net/posting.php?mode=quote&f=15&p=1524100 ;
3. Taken from http://z8.invisionfree.invalid.com/The_North_Pacific/ar/t3253.htm;
4. Taken from http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Native;
5. “Code 1006 is admittedly very selectively enforced,” attributed to Francos Spain from Jan 3, 2004; Taken from http://newpacificorder.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=region&thread=203&page=1#5966 ; Code 1006 prohibits “giving your endorsement to a nation with whom you are not familiar personally”;
6. “Ukroatia, you are allowed to question the practices and laws of the NPO, so long as your intent is not to subvert the government. We here have a passionate, open dialogue about the governance of our region, and we thank you for joining in. [...] With respect to the political accountability statutes (series 2), these are also selectively enforced on nation who are particularly annoying in their slanderous banter against the NPO,” attributed to Sir Paul from Feb 27, 2004; Taken from http://newpacificorder.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=archive&thread=440&page=1#9766; Code 1001 prohibits “a declaration of dislike for the Delegate of the Pacific or his policies with intent to subvert the Government” whereas the relevant 2000 code series prohibited “expression of dislike for the policies of the Pacific Government or those Governments allied with or declared friendly by the Pacific Government” and “expression of views considered counter to those of the Pacific Government”;
7. For more information, see http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Gatesville
I couped!?! Damn, that election last week must have been all for nothing!
