The Raider and Politics
Throughout the past year, there has been a great deal of commentary on the World Assembly, specifically its belligerent stance on a majority of raider Condemnations, its rubber-stamping of boilerplate Liberations, and, most recently, the very real prospect of preemptive Injunctions. All of these are actions taken to oppose raiders in the World Assembly, and yet they frequently pass with overwhelming support. It’s no secret that prominent raider organizations such as LWU and TBH lack WA infrastructure of any significance - and yet, despite this always having been the case, the aggressive anti-raider stance in the World Assembly was not always so. While Liberations on active, non-problematic regions were usually still passed by a wide margin (and even then there have been instances where they were defeated so long as a justification could be found), Condemnations used to be far more common - if one was proposed, it was usually passed - and Commendations far less untouchable. Even Commend Texas, the replacement of an old Defender region’s commend, was heavily contested by raiders and raider allies. Nowadays, every detagger gets one without a hint of resistance.
One of the main reasons for this paradigm shift in the SC is a rejection of politics and political action by some vocal raiders. This has happened for a variety of reasons; a sentiment that’s been expressed by some is the apparent belief that raiding should be considered an apolitical movement. This is, of course, foolish because raiding does not exist in a vacuum, and that any military action is inherently political even if the motivation behind it is relatively simplistic such as “it’s fun” or “burning this region down would be cool”. These are all fine and good reasons to raid, and inherent to raiding as an ideology, but herein already lies a problem: an ideology and ideological alignment can never be “inherently apolitical”, for if it wasn’t political it would not be an ideological alignment, and pretending that raiders exist in a vacuum is denying reality. This rejection of politics has inspired a certain shortsightedness and impulsiveness in the actions of certain sectors in raiding. These rash actions have, for some, led to the loss of traditional allies and have hampered the ability of all raiders to forge new partnerships with prospective allies.
The absence of raiders as a force to be reckoned with in the political arena has led to the domination of the political game by defenders and defender sympathizers. We saw with TNP’s recent debacle with defenders that defenders aren’t the political masterminds that some thought they were, and in the same move proved all their detractors right: they have not changed from the awful diplomatic partners they were in the past, they have just put on a new mask. This was plain for the entire world to see, and yet Independents did not feel comfortable breaking ties with them. Why is this? It is simply because the extreme actions of certain individuals in raiding have led to the inability to provide a solid alternative to defending. Defenders may not be geniuses, but they’re actually involved in the political arena and if you don’t have any competition, you win by default.
Many of those raiders that disregard politics aren’t necessarily oblivious to the fact that they are losing politically, as it is rather difficult to miss, but instead of recognizing the natural consequences of their own actions and their ability to change this state of affairs at any moment, they blame everyone else around them. Pretending that the World Assembly is a monolithic entity inherently opposed to raiders rather than a political institution largely in the hands of regions that are theoretically open to working with raiders is not just utterly delusional, it is the sort of self-pitying behavior one could see from a native that thinks they cannot possibly be expected to secure their region. Raiders have always had the tools to succeed in the World Assembly and the political playing field within reach, and for well over a decade were indeed succeeding. Liberator forces were smaller due to the absence of Independent powers, World Assembly proposals favorable to raiding passed frequently and Defenders were often isolated. Although certain shifts in attitude could not be helped, shortsightedness and hubris ended up tearing this foundation down.
To be a raider is to inherently seek to challenge the status quo. A core tenet of revolutionary Raiderism, as defined by the Wolfist Manifesto, is to combat the spread of defenderism wherever it can be found, to drive out the rot of their influence. But to challenge the status quo, a view of the battlefield must always be kept in mind. Drive and determination can move mountains - it was a desire for change that eliminated the last vestiges of the dying ADN from the Feeders, and it was determination that caused Lazarus to cast off its Defender shackles. But drive and determination are nothing without a vision and a direction to take it into - when aimless, it is simply juvenile rage.
Raiders should never accept a situation in which they are treated as subordinates or treated with disrespect for no reason, but they should likewise never childishly blind themselves to the consequences of their actions. If the status quo is to be challenged, and if Raiding wishes to achieve the dominance that it is capable of, issues such as hyper-aggressive alienation of prospective partners, petulant and naive rejection of political compromise, and treatment of diplomacy as an extortion scheme must be addressed. In the era of Frontiers, it is more important than ever that raiders connect with natural allies and forge long-lasting partnerships to truly root out Defenderism wherever it may be found.
