Independent Joint Command Coalition

[Colony of Articuno]

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or are deliberately obscuring my point. You didn't have a founding figure with the nation name of "Mussolini" or "Szalai" or whatever, and so of course it'd be absurd to entertain that thought!

If we had a player named after a fascist, I dont think we would have named our ideology after them and chosen something like Codreanuism or Tisoism. Could you imagine if we had chosen something even "less" bad like Verwoerdism after the founder of apartheid. Europeia banned a citizen because of their usage of apartheid symbols in their citizenship page as well as views. So it is doubtful that we would have named an ideology after a fascist named player.

Would TSP name their ideology after a delegate if they had chosen a fascist name?

I just dont see why it couldn't be dropped or even renamed after something not fascist.

Its a fair argument to make. Nevertheless the founder of our Order is named Francos Spain, and it has been used continuously for over 15 years, across different spheres and iterations of the Order. In 2005 should the authors behind the basic ideological theory have found a different name, yeah, but it is what it is. We've had changes to overall philosophical thought coming from the NPO through the years, but one that has sustained is something that continues as a result of the sunk costs behind such a theoretical foundation. To conflate that to fascism is a stretch.

The founding principles of the Order, and the class conflict, does not fascism make, as much as greatly influenced by the individual v community security paradox argued by Hobbes, which has led to numerous political and philosophical implications. To say we don't have a choice or are unequal within the Order, is inherently silly, seeing how the nations who joined the Order, choose to do so of their free will, understanding the ruling concepts behind the Order and preferring our system of functioning. Our ruling dogma has similar characteristics to authoritarian regimes throughout history, but has taken its own hybrid shape. Rank does not play a role as much as the willingness of individuals to volunteer to carry out work for the Order to be rewarded for such. We choose the most efficient system, that suits our style of play as a community, and this is what has developed, through different experimentations, and influences. To claim that this somehow makes us aggressive fascists is hilarious.

Also our aggressive nature is debatable, depending on the position you start from. As a member of the Order for a while, I see our moves as defensive in nature to protect our interests. Whatever they maybe, our right to protect our own security is the key driving force of IR/GP in NS and its a right each and every major region in the game has used it in their own ways. To particularly pick out the Order and demonise our usage of this right to prove we're some sort of demon black shirts is cool for narratives and everything but patently false.

Nevertheless, our theme has allowed for exaggerations with regards to images that has been used and has been rectified over time. Did we probably have problematic images at some point? Yeah, does that come from the top and therefore official Order position today? Nah. Using those tidbits to paint us as fascists is an outright fabrication, even more so given our open position in dealing with ACTUAL fascists in NationStates.

[Unibot III]

Well, what are they, Glen? If you want to have this argument, we can have it.

A region themed around Imperial Rome. Was it stupid to use that symbol a decade ago? Sure was. Is it fair today to basically call the NPO fascist? Absolutely not. It's stupid. Jar Wattinree should probably just shut up, too.

The UDL wasn't advocating theocracy or promoting Catholic views of women or homosexuality when we ripped conclaves straight from Catholic tradition. Nor does Onder have fond feelings over the Scramble for Africa because he advocates imperialism in GP.

The New Pacific Order believes in authoritarianism. They believe in self-sufficiency. They believe in a strong leader. They believe in aggressive expansionism.

As Osiris has, and plenty of other regions nobody has ever called RL-problematic, over the years.

The New Pacific Order is is for all intents and purposes, a fascist organization with fascist goals and a fascist governing philosophy.

You're jumping the shark here.

The attitude you're voicing here is not consistent with your years as a defender of individual rights and freedom in NationStates.

Dare I say it, I believe it's principally motivated by the ill-conceived alliance between the South Pacific and the New Pacific Order.

I didn't think NPOers were literal RL fascists before TSP allied with them, either.

Sure. They're francoists, an emergent label that is NationStates exclusive. Just like the term "Independent" has absolutely nothing to do with the dictionary definition, but rather is an emergent label for regions like Balder, Europeia, LKE, and others of that sort. Cosmopolitanism, Unaligned, Defender, Raider, Invader - these are all terms that are rooted in RL terms in their etymology, but have emergent NS specific definitions.

They could have called it "Shopping Cart". Or "Penis". Or "McCheese". As it is, the inaugural nation's name happened to be "Francos Spain", that was easy to propagandize (which is important in this game, even if nobody likes saying it out loud), and thus Unlimited made it "Francoism". Tadaa.

I find this entire line of reasoning by (particularly) Souls and Unibot absolutely absurd.

First of all, the assumption that NPO was based off "Imperial Rome" is hilariously naïve and ahistorical. Some have attempted to rebrand it in such a manner, that is the extent of its relevance.

Second, you're making a distinction been RL and NS that is not an accurate distinction. Monarchism, Fascism, Republicanism et. - these are governing philosophies, ways of organizing the state. Philosophies don't begin and end at the fringes of NS or RL, they intersect and they are shared. Much of my writing in NS is Kantian, for instance. It's possible for a NS philosophy to share elements of, or indeed be a RL philosophy - and more to the point, it is possible for people to hold views in NS which have relevance to RL for which they do not hold in relation to RL (I haven't called anyone "literal RL fascists" precisely for that reason.)

To take all of the fundamental aspects of fascism, group them together and call them "Francoism," does not mean that Francoism ceases to be fascist, nor does it mean the Francoist state ceases to be fascist. It means that its philosophies and its governing structures are analogous and intrinsically linked. The use of an NS-specific term here obscures the full extent to which "Francoism" instrumentally is just Fascism re-branded and renamed.

I'll note Glen-Rhodes has resorted to a 'whataboutery' here in referring to Osiris, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's dive into it shall we-? Osiris is authoritarian, but I do not believe its behaviour is consistent with aggressive expansionism; the New Pacific Order's eponymous myth and raison d'être is the creation of a new imperial order, whereas Osiris has routinely opposed efforts to imperialise game-created regions and has respected international law. Conflating the isolated exploits of the Sekhmet Legion with the occupation of the North Pacific and Lazarus is a sour joke. Osiris and its behaviour as a state is simply not extreme enough for its behaviour and personality to be found fascist in nature.

In your use of "RL-problematic," I sense you may have misunderstood the purpose of my invocation of "fascist." I did not articulate why and how NPO is fascist to have it reduced by default to the status of "problematic," in the contemporary RL social justice sense, I articulated why and how NPO is fascist to identify the political reality of its internal and external behaviour on a descriptive level. I reject the NPO and Francoism, not because it can be accurately labelled as fascist, but rather because I reject the elements, in RL and in NS, that are present in both Francoism and Fascism. I'm not scared off by a name, I reject the behaviour, the governing personality, and the fundamentals that can be attributed to both.

To recount, I have articulated that the NPO...
- Is an authoritarian regime.
- Believes in self-sufficiency.
- Idolizes and supplicates 'a strong leader'.
- Is an aggressive expansionist movement. Its fundamental motivation is to see out the realization of "Pacifica."
- Is prone to scapegoating problems on "userites" and pluralism, seeking to resolve this class conflict with force.
- Advances extensive censorship.
- Believes in rank ("meritocracy") over equality.
- Expects total obedience and allegiance to the Emperor and to the Order.
- Asserts itself as an all-embracing collective entity and disputes the significance of the individual.

And you haven't disputed that that list is perfectly in line with tendencies of a fascist regime, nor have you disputed my characterization of elements of NPO's behaviour and society. Which leaves little more to discuss here.

If you believe NPO is not fascist, you either do not understand fascism or you do not understand the NPO.

But I think you know I'm right, I think you're both being intellectual dishonest and paying lip service to a shitty ally who is going to bite you two in the arses someday.

[Colony of Articuno]

First of all, the assumption that NPO was based off "Imperial Rome" is hilariously naïve and ahistorical. Some have attempted to rebrand it in such a manner, that is the extent of its relevance.

Second, you're making a distinction been RL and NS that is not an accurate distinction. Monarchism, Fascism, Republicanism et. - these are governing philosophies, ways of organizing the state. Philosophies don't begin and end at the fringes of NS or RL, they intersect and they are shared. Much of my writing in NS is Kantian, for instance. It's possible for a NS philosophy to share elements of, or indeed be a RL philosophy - and more to the point, it is possible for people to hold views in NS which have relevance to RL for which they do not hold in relation to RL (I haven't called anyone "literal RL fascists" precisely for that reason.)

To take all of the fundamental aspects of fascism, group them together and call them "Francoism," does not mean that Francoism ceases to be fascist, nor does it mean the Francoist state ceases to be fascist. It means that its philosophies and its governing structures are analogous and intrinsically linked. The use of an NS-specific term here obscures the full extent to which "Francoism" instrumentally is just Fascism re-branded and renamed.

I'll note Glen-Rhodes has resorted to a 'whataboutery' here in referring to Osiris, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's dive into it shall we-? Osiris is authoritarian, but I do not believe its behaviour is consistent with aggressive expansionism; the New Pacific Order's eponymous myth and raison d'être is the creation of a new imperial order, whereas Osiris has routinely opposed efforts to imperialise game-created regions and has respected international law. Conflating the isolated exploits of the Sekhmet Legion with the occupation of the North Pacific and Lazarus is a sour joke. Osiris and its behaviour as a state is simply not extreme enough for its behaviour and personality to be found fascist in nature.

In your use of "RL-problematic," I sense you may have misunderstood the purpose of my invocation of "fascist." I did not articulate why and how NPO is fascist to have it reduced by default to the status of "problematic," in the contemporary RL social justice sense, I articulated why and how NPO is fascist to identify the political reality of its internal and external behaviour on a descriptive level. I reject the NPO and Francoism, not because it can be accurately labelled as fascist, but rather because I reject the elements, in RL and in NS, that are present in both Francoism and Fascism. I'm not scared off by a name, I reject the behaviour, the governing personality, and the fundamentals that can be attributed to both.

To recount, I have articulated that the NPO...
- Is an authoritarian regime.
- Believes in self-sufficiency.
- Idolizes and supplicates 'a strong leader'.
- Is prone to scapegoating problems on "userites" and pluralism, seeking to resolve this class conflict with force.
- Advances extensive censorship.
- Believes in rank ("meritocracy") over equality.
- Expects total obedience and allegiance to the Emperor and to the Order.
- Asserts itself as an all-embracing collective entity and disputes the significance of the individual.

And you haven't disputed that that list is perfectly in line with tendencies of a fascist regime, nor have you disputed my characterization of elements of NPO's behaviour and society. Which leaves little more to discuss here.

If you believe NPO is not fascist, you either do not understand fascism or you do not understand the NPO.

But I think you know I'm right, I think you're both being intellectual dishonest and paying lip service to a shitty ally who is going to bite you two in the arses someday.

I'll bite. The present modern Pacifica, along with our shared communities have taken symbolism heavily from the Roman Empire, and has always co-opted Imperial Roman governing bodies, such as the Praetorian Guard, Exarchates and other such mechanisms through out its history. It has its varied histories, from some kind of Soviet dictatorship to the more modern hybrid meritocratic authoritarianism thats the present dogma. Our reasons to do so aren't philosophical in nature at the time as much as the most efficient means to maintain our community and our region. Having democratic principles is great, and there are regions for such, but there are players who prefer a different approach to governance, one that they believe is more efficient at protecting their rights and security and therefore buy into the Pacifican system of governance. Nevertheless, our evolution to the present state has and will always be steeped in Roman symbolism and that to me is alright, its the kind of role-play we have chosen.

Moreover, with regards to your specific claims of our fascist nature of functioning, I'd like to point out certain misconceptions with regard to the functioning of the Order.

"- Is an authoritarian regime."

Yeah so are numerous other GCRs and UCRs. Some maybe elective authoritarian in nature, nevertheless, that does not make one fascist. The scope of power and the nature of the application of the said power, within robust democracies RL western democracies, can also be seen as philosophically authoritarian in nature. Nevertheless, this does not make a fascist.

"- Believes in self-sufficiency."

Autarky in nature is the stated economic goals of numerous philosophies, from the left and the right. Being self-sufficient is not inherently wrong, as much as the context and the steps taken to ensure self-sufficiency. Being self-sufficient also usually means being closed, which then when taken to the extreme, is usually a symbol of a fascist state. In lighter forms, its seen as basic economic protectionism, or social protections for the citizens of a said nation. At the end of the day, states strive to become self-sufficient, and this does not automatically make them closed states. The NPO is one such state. It isn't closed, our members are allowed to leave the Order and/or hold different memberships, and move around NationStates. The only prevailing contract we sign is that at the end of the day, what happens within the Order stays within the Order, and thats an idea that exists within almost every region in this game.

"- Idolizes and supplicates 'a strong leader'. "

Yeah, so what? Every region that has the form of an executive President/ elective monarchy, or out right authoritarian architectures, are based on the principle that the person in power, is inherently strong. So unless you're claiming Osiris is fascist under this very definition, you're just stretching here.

"- Is an aggressive expansionist movement. Its fundamental motivation is to see out the realization of "Pacifica.""

Our fundamental motivation is to see our region secure and therefore our members secure. Thats literally the central idea behind the creation of our system. The Leviathan that is the Pacifican government, exists as a social contract to protect the safety and security of our members. It is and always will be our internal security that matters. That is our fundamental motivation. Everything is just applying your own misconceptions to that of the Order.

"- Is prone to scapegoating problems on "userites" and pluralism, seeking to resolve this class conflict with force."

It is not scapegoating, as much as pointing out the problematic usage of force, to challenge and harm GCRs, and subvert the GCRs to outside influence. We have the right to protect GCRs from subversion as is our role as the original and oldest GCR in the game. If force is used to subvert GCRs, then our means to respond is limited. Cannot help it if folks take aggressive actions against GCRs or the Pacific, and require us to roll over and die. We'll deal with force, through all means necessary to protect our security. Does that make us fascist? Not really, but if thats the low threshold you're setting, than just about every sovereign region in this game is fascist.

"- Advances extensive censorship."

Not really. In the past have I seen governments of the Pacific, censoring their members yes. Does it still happen? No. Are there secrets kept from the membership? Probably, am I bothered by it? No. Chain of command exists in every region, and there is a trend of censorship of information amongst any competent organisation in this game. Our Senate is transparent in explaining its decision making, and therefore this really is again a very low bar you're setting to define a fascist.

"- Believes in rank ("meritocracy") over equality.
- Expects total obedience and allegiance to the Emperor and to the Order.
- Asserts itself as an all-embracing collective entity and disputes the significance of the individual. "

I'll answer all three in one go. Every region and system of governance is based on the belief of merit. That is essentially the basis of any capitalist structure, the idea that the most deserving, or the best at their job will get their fair share. Thats prevalent amongst any system. Does that reduce equality? Not really. At the end of the day, every Pacifican is equal, as the focal point of being Pacifican is the Body Republic. We have the same rights as Pergamon, or any other member of the senate, simply because at the end of the day, we are all citizens of the Pacific. Does Pergamon has more rights than us? No. The Civil Code is equal for all, and our justice system is based on the principle of equality before the law. We are an inherently equal society, with the functioning of ranks as part of our bureaucratic system. To claim that our bureaucracy has different, or higher rights than our membership, showcases the projection of your misconceptions to the central tenets of the Pacifican system.

Every region expects allegiance to their region. Treason is usually considered bad in any system, including democratic institutions. Especially in democratic institutions. To be loyal, once again does not a fascist make. You're really setting a low bar here, where almost every region in the game is fascist by your definition.

Are we an organisation that is based of collective security? Yes, so is almost form of governance outside of Anarchism and Libertarian principles. Even in Libertarianism, the "state" exists and therefore there exists a prevailing collective social organisation and mobilisation. Once again, this does not a fascist state make.

All in all, from your arguments, you've set a real low bar on what makes a fascist, under which almost any and all regions can be considered fascist. Your weak caveats in trying to defend other authoritarian regions is cool, but shows how you hold them to different standards to ours and then throw out absolute descriptions of what makes a fascist organisation, which is applicable to almost every non-democratic region in this game. Go ahead, but it just showcases your personal bias vs the Order than any objective criticism of our allegedly "fascist" behaviour.

[Unibot III]

"- Is an authoritarian regime."

Yeah so are numerous other GCRs and UCRs. Some maybe elective authoritarian in nature, nevertheless, that does not make one fascist. The scope of power and the nature of the application of the said power, within robust democracies RL western democracies, can also be seen as philosophically authoritarian in nature. Nevertheless, this does not make a fascist.

You do not dispute that NPO is authoritarian, you instead ask "What about...?"

I never said authoritarianism was sufficient to be defined as fascist: it is a necessary not sufficient condition. Fascism is a gradient and must be identified along a multivariate analysis, hence I have not relied on one condition or point to make the overall observation that the New Pacific Order is indeed fascist.

"- Believes in self-sufficiency."

Autarky in nature is the stated economic goals of numerous philosophies, from the left and the right. Being self-sufficient is not inherently wrong, as much as the context and the steps taken to ensure self-sufficiency. Being self-sufficient also usually means being closed, which then when taken to the extreme, is usually a symbol of a fascist state. In lighter forms, its seen as basic economic protectionism, or social protections for the citizens of a said nation. At the end of the day, states strive to become self-sufficient, and this does not automatically make them closed states. The NPO is one such state. It isn't closed, our members are allowed to leave the Order and/or hold different memberships, and move around NationStates. The only prevailing contract we sign is that at the end of the day, what happens within the Order stays within the Order, and thats an idea that exists within almost every region in this game.

Again, you confuse my intentions: I am not asserting autarky as a sufficient condition to be defined as fascist, but rather, a necessary one.

You don't disagree here with me that the New Pacific Order believes in self-sufficiency, but rather debate the extremeness of the New Pacific Order's commitment to autarky. I disagree in this respect, I believe at a number of points in time, the New Pacific Order - especially in Moldavian terms - has expressed its belief in interregional anarchy and an extreme 'sink-or-swim' perspective. Whereas a democracy such as the North Pacific or the South Pacific would expect allies to come to its assistance in the event of a coup d'etat (which is part and parcel a motivation behind its investment in global cooperation and international law), the New Pacific Order through NationStates, CyberNations, and other games has built itself up as a military superpower that does not expect assistance and indeed its 'security independence' in those regards is central to New Pacific Order's internal propaganda and a driving force behind the way it governs its authoritarian regime.

The freedom of co-citizenship is granted only within the scope of the New Pacific Order's fundamental goal of feeder imperialisation and the spread of its power. It has nothing to do with the freedom of movement and everything to do with the organization's hopes to bring more regions into the reaches of the Order.

"- Idolizes and supplicates 'a strong leader'. "

Yeah, so what? Every region that has the form of an executive President/ elective monarchy, or out right authoritarian architectures, are based on the principle that the person in power, is inherently strong. So unless you're claiming Osiris is fascist under this very definition, you're just stretching here.

Again, necessary not sufficient.

I should clarify here that I'm not concerned with the power afforded to the Emperor, I actually don't believe that the NPO Emperor has as much authority in the Pacific as, say, the Queen does in Balder, because the NPO Emperor is in practice subservient to a higher command outside of NationStates. The total self-sufficiency and the self-supremacy of the New Pacific Order is only interpretable by viewing its meta-universe as one organism; in reality, the Pacific's leadership is deeply (and ironically) dependent on powers separate to its existence in NationStates.

What I am concerned here with is the style and supplication in the New Pacific Order's approach to leadership and authority.

"- Is an aggressive expansionist movement. Its fundamental motivation is to see out the realization of "Pacifica.""

Our fundamental motivation is to see our region secure and therefore our members secure. Thats literally the central idea behind the creation of our system. The Leviathan that is the Pacifican government, exists as a social contract to protect the safety and security of our members. It is and always will be our internal security that matters. That is our fundamental motivation. Everything is just applying your own misconceptions to that of the Order.

This is incorrect. The New Pacific Order is not simply isolationist and its ambitions are not exclusively the security of one region itself and its perpetuation. The New Pacific Order believes in Pacifica, the fuller, complete realization of an empire, 'the Order' of Game-Created Regions.

This was the prime motivation behind the New Pacific Order's subjugation of the North Pacific. When it occurred, Francos Spain wrote, "Tyranny has been deposed! The North Pacific is now guided by the ideals of Peace, Strength, and Prosperity. A New Pacific Order has been formed.." This was also the prime motivation behind the New Pacific Order's subjugation of Lazarus more recently, which was at that time titled the New Lazarene Order. The New Pacific Order has a repeated and documented history of imperial ambitions and aggressive expansionism.

"- Is prone to scapegoating problems on "userites" and pluralism, seeking to resolve this class conflict with force."

It is not scapegoating, as much as pointing out the problematic usage of force, to challenge and harm GCRs, and subvert the GCRs to outside influence. We have the right to protect GCRs from subversion as is our role as the original and oldest GCR in the game. If force is used to subvert GCRs, then our means to respond is limited. Cannot help it if folks take aggressive actions against GCRs or the Pacific, and require us to roll over and die. We'll deal with force, through all means necessary to protect our security. Does that make us fascist? Not really, but if thats the low threshold you're setting, than just about every sovereign region in this game is fascist.

You're ignoring the particularities of the class conflict as it is defined and in practice articulated. "Userites" are individuals targeted by NPO propaganda, they're a class of minorities that are identified by the NPO as possessing unproportional power in their respective Game-Created Regions and indicted for their lack of independent commitment to said regions. This closely follows key aspects of class conflict in fascist propaganda and philosophy: that there are "globalists" undermining the development of a nationalist movement and the region-building process.

"- Advances extensive censorship."

Not really. In the past have I seen governments of the Pacific, censoring their members yes. Does it still happen? No. Are there secrets kept from the membership? Probably, am I bothered by it? No. Chain of command exists in every region, and there is a trend of censorship of information amongst any competent organisation in this game. Our Senate is transparent in explaining its decision making, and therefore this really is again a very low bar you're setting to define a fascist.

Again, necessary not sufficient.

"- Believes in rank ("meritocracy") over equality.
- Expects total obedience and allegiance to the Emperor and to the Order.
- Asserts itself as an all-embracing collective entity and disputes the significance of the individual. "

I'll answer all three in one go. Every region and system of governance is based on the belief of merit. That is essentially the basis of any capitalist structure, the idea that the most deserving, or the best at their job will get their fair share. Thats prevalent amongst any system. Does that reduce equality? Not really. At the end of the day, every Pacifican is equal, as the focal point of being Pacifican is the Body Republic. We have the same rights as Pergamon, or any other member of the senate, simply because at the end of the day, we are all citizens of the Pacific. Does Pergamon has more rights than us? No. The Civil Code is equal for all, and our justice system is based on the principle of equality before the law. We are an inherently equal society, with the functioning of ranks as part of our bureaucratic system. To claim that our bureaucracy has different, or higher rights than our membership, showcases the projection of your misconceptions to the central tenets of the Pacifican system.

Every region expects allegiance to their region. Treason is usually considered bad in any system, including democratic institutions. Especially in democratic institutions. To be loyal, once again does not a fascist make. You're really setting a low bar here, where almost every region in the game is fascist by your definition.

This is an absolute misreading of the New Pacific Order's customs. The New Pacific Order does not possess a rights-based consciousness, it is an ordered society built on rank and privilege. The Order owes you nothing. Furthermore, the Civil Code is ultimately enforced at the discretion of the Emperor.

For instance, as one Francoist once wrote: you have the 'freedom of speech' as a Pacifician, but the responsibility to accept full consequences for this speech which come at the discretion of the region's leadership. It is better said still that a Pacifican has the power to speak but no right to freedom in those regards. Now compare the experience of a Pacifican to a Reject in the Rejected Realms: rejects are allowed to criticize the delegate of the Rejected Realms in the Rejected Times if they feel like it, no one is going to reprimand them because it would be inappropriate to reprimand for exercising someone's rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, a democratic society expects fidelity to the law, not the leader. The NPO expects total allegiance to the Emperor and consequently the Order as one in the same, co-substantial and indivisible. The extent to which the New Pacific Order expects allegiance, especially in its abolition of 'the individual' in favour of a collective entity, is far more extreme than most regions in NationStates.

Overall, the New Pacific Order meets all necessary conditions to be considered fascist and does so, on balance, with pronounced extremity; many leading regions meet some of these conditions, none meet them all and do so with such fervency. Dare I say it, but the New Pacific Order practices fascism more accurately than most regions that proudly identify with fascism in NationStates.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Of course you could just accept that the game isn't really this serious and stop trying to rather offensively tie in an in-game regime with an ideology that committed some of the worst crimes in human history.

[Consular]

Personally I think Balder should drop its viking theme. I find it pretty insensitive to the victims of viking terror.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Personally I think Balder should drop its viking theme. I find it pretty insensitive to the victims of viking terror.

Hell you can apply this line of thinking to all imperialist regions.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

This is possibly the most ridiculous debate I've ever seen in NSGP (and that's saying something...). The NPO are clearly not fascist, and I'd say it's pretty disrespectful to the victims of fascism to insinuate that they are.

Do I need to remind people that this is a game? Having an authoritarian theme in-game does not mean that the players support anything like that IRL. There are plenty of actual fascists in the game who deserve to be criticised for their disgusting views. Let's not stoop to the level of throwing around fascism as a label for any region that is authoritarian in-game.

Having a reasonable conversation about some of the questionable parts of TP's theme is good, but this debate seems to be more rooted in GP politics than any genuine concern that the NPO support fascism in any way.

[Unibot III]

This is possibly the most ridiculous debate I've ever seen in NSGP (and that's saying something...). The NPO are clearly not fascist, and I'd say it's pretty disrespectful to the victims of fascism to insinuate that they are.

Do I need to remind people that this is a game? Having an authoritarian theme in-game does not mean that the players support anything like that IRL. There are plenty of actual fascists in the game who deserve to be criticised for their disgusting views. Let's not stoop to the level of throwing around fascism as a label for any region that is authoritarian in-game.

Having a reasonable conversation about some of the questionable parts of TP's theme is good, but this debate seems to be more rooted in GP politics than any genuine concern that the NPO support fascism in any way.

I really don't understand this perspective, I haven't said anyone's views IRL are fascist. Fascism is a way of governing and a way of thinking about people and organizing society. Regions can be fascist, they can be libertarian, republican, monarchical etc. These are specific, descriptive terms for political systems.

[Drop Your Pants]

Assuming Topid and Uni have been chatting again since Topid calls NPO fascist in his WFE dispatch. Get your own material Uni, don't use other peoples

[Kostrorleauny]

You know, I believe our incumbent Governor from Province Ardere said it best in his on-site signature as it regards to the Order and it’s Francoist ideals.

To quote them, and they are indeed words of originality from what i have been told, but: “Outsiders see Francoism as static and unchanging, and equate it to fascism. Francoism, however, is continual revolution, with equal opportunity for all comrades. Francoism secures and protects the native feederites from ravening subversives.”

As an added note, the caption for this particular spoiler on their signature is entitled “Francoism for Dummies” ... That being the case, I’ll leave the wording of that to speak to each of you individually in your own ways.

Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that people become Pacificans of their own free will. Just like any other region on NationStates, game-created or otherwise, we accept (or deny) citizenship applications submitted to us by users new and old.

Call us “oppressive” and “authoritarian” all you’d like, but consider the following:

If players didn’t want to be Pacificans then they are in no way whatsoever forced to remain within the region. The Order’s status as the longtime governing body of a Feeder region dictates that newly founded nations have the opportunity to arrive in the region upon establishment.

Except... they aren’t forced to say. Not everyone who wants to be a Pacifican is able to be one, but those who are capable of being Pacificans and contributing to their comrades will be rewarded. It’s called a meritocracy, those who want to be here and want to work will be rewarded accordingly for their service and efforts based upon individual merit dedicated to a collective utility.

It’s not like real life at all in the sense that anyone who wants to leave can simply resign citizenship and make a swift exit. Therefore, comparing it to real life and a real life destructive ideology is not only foolish, but it’s unfounded.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sure. They're francoists, an emergent label that is NationStates exclusive. Just like the term "Independent" has absolutely nothing to do with the dictionary definition, but rather is an emergent label for regions like Balder, Europeia, LKE, and others of that sort. Cosmopolitanism, Unaligned, Defender, Raider, Invader - these are all terms that are rooted in RL terms in their etymology, but have emergent NS specific definitions.

They could have called it "Shopping Cart". Or "Penis". Or "McCheese". As it is, the inaugural nation's name happened to be "Francos Spain", that was easy to propagandize (which is important in this game, even if nobody likes saying it out loud), and thus Unlimited made it "Francoism". Tadaa.

I find this entire line of reasoning by (particularly) Souls and Unibot absolutely absurd.

"NationStates exclusive?" Funny, I don't see a single NS hit in the first 8 pages of google returns for francoism (I didn't bother going past eight). At the very least, continuing to use the name is in fucking poor taste. I doubt they would have adopted an ideology if its originating nation had happened to be called "Mussolinis Italy."

Or maybe they would, which is even worse.

What's wrong with calling the ideology something like Feederism or Proper Pacific Thought or something? If the name is such a small deal, nobody should have a problem with switching it up to something that doesn't put you in the same rhetorical boat with

[Roavin]

"NationStates exclusive?" Funny, I don't see a single NS hit in the first 8 pages of google returns for francoism (I didn't bother going past eight).

I probably should have phrased that differently. I mean that it has a very specific definition here in NationStates, and that definition is exclusive to NationStates and has nothing to do with RL.

[Frattastan IV]

What's wrong with calling the ideology something like Feederism

Google that.

[Bedetopia]

What's wrong with calling the ideology something like Feederism

Google that.

I'll spare you the search: It's another name for fat fetish.

[Unibot III]

Get your own material Uni, don't use other peoples

Bravo, DYP. You've perfected your insults of me. *twitches* This one cuts deep.

If players didn’t want to be Pacificans then they are in no way whatsoever forced to remain within the region.

This is a bizarre argument: many democratic countries elect fascist governments. The extent to which fascism appeals to people does not diminish its weaknesses as a governing style and its contradictions with notions of individualism, international peace and justice, and fundamental equality.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Google that.

I'll spare you the search: It's another name for fat fetish.

So instead of paying homage to a disgusting tyrant, they'd be paying homage to people joyfully fulfilling their sexual desires? What's not to love?

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

I'll spare you the search: It's another name for fat fetish.

So instead of paying homage to a disgusting tyrant, they'd be paying homage to people joyfully fulfilling their sexual desires? What's not to love?

It's quite clearly paying homage to the nation that founded the regime, and has absolutely nothing to do with the fascist dictator.

Attempts to define it as otherwise just sound desperate and reaching, especially considering some of these people have no issues with imperialists - despite imperialism and colonialism being responsible for 50,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone - or with communists - responsible for well over 115,000,000 deaths.

[RiderSyl]

Having a reasonable conversation about some of the questionable parts of TP's theme is good, but this debate seems to be more rooted in GP politics than any genuine concern that the NPO support fascism in any way.

This is where I'm at. There's plenty to criticize the NPO for at this point, with the developments over the past week. This line of attack on the name of their ideology is a stretch.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

It's quite clearly paying homage to the nation that founded the regime, and has absolutely nothing to do with the fascist dictator.

Attempts to define it as otherwise just sound desperate and reaching, especially considering some of these people have no issues with imperialists - despite imperialism and colonialism being responsible for 50,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone - or with communists - responsible for well over 115,000,000 deaths.

On this point - I have always viewed the NPO as communist more so than fascists. Their rhetoric (there exists an oppressed class that must revolt and overthrow the shackles of their oppressors, and then safeguard itself against their return) is much closer to communism than fascism. That being said, from what I can tell, they're not communists either.

I think the best way to describe them is: they utilize a far-right symbolic, a far-left rhetoric, while ideologically they are an autocracy specific to NS. It's like an Unholy Trinity of bad.

...

Except Roman stuff that is.

[Cormactopia Prime]

So instead of paying homage to a disgusting tyrant, they'd be paying homage to people joyfully fulfilling their sexual desires? What's not to love?

It's quite clearly paying homage to the nation that founded the regime, and has absolutely nothing to do with the fascist dictator.

Okay, then let's talk about the guy who founded the regime. He chose to name his nation "Francos Spain," which clearly did have something to do with the fascist dictator. That aside, the fascism argument completely aside, he also faked his own death. We know that for a fact.

Any way you slice it, calling their ideology "Francoism" is abhorrent. Both their namesake and the fascist state he named himself after are abhorrent.