Doctrines of the Rebellion

Doctrines of the Rebellion
or,
Francoism in Crisis
~by Chairman Alexis

The Pacific continues to degenerate into chaos because its leadership has lost the support of the Pacifican people. The Francoist Union of Pacifican States, despite being formed around a pledge to bring a social culture back to the Pacific. While the return of the active and experienced Ivan Moldavi to the Pacific was expected to revive the Pacific, it is becoming clear that his presence does nothing to stop the rebellion against Moo Cows and the swarms of trolls posting on the region's rmb.

Only a total revolution that overthrows the delegate can save the Pacific from anarchy. Evolutionary change simply means a new manifestation of the outmoded Mooist order. Cybernations-Nationstates crossover under the Mooists has led to the rise of the Sycophant Class - a class of nations with no loyalty to any region, and thus work against the social culture of the Pacific and of Nationstates in general.

The actions of the Moo regime have thrown the ideology of Francoism itself into crisis and dissaray. A Great Schism has taken place, dividing the feederists into two schools:

The Mooists: Led by Comrade Vanguard Moo Cows with Guns and Grand Inquisitor Ivan Moldavi, the Mooists espouse Userite support in endorsing the delegate when the Pacifican masses themselves lose their fervor.

The Old Francoists: Led by Pacifican Folk Heroes New Kervoskia and Karpathos, the Old Francoists believe that the Revolution must be carried out via Feederite support only.

In my view, the rise of Mooism represents a betrayal of the Feederite revolution against the Userites. Ivan Moldavi and Moo Cows with Guns are willing to sell the Pacific's interests to the Userites in order to keep themselves in power, regardless of the amount of fervor on the part of the Pacificans. The use of userite endorsements to keep a delegate in power means the delegate must make concessions to the Userites at the expense of the Feederites and are held privy to Userite interests, proportional to the number of endorsements a Mooist delegate (for instance, Matthuis during the coup and Moo Cows himself) recieve from them.

The Old Francoist ideology, meanwhile, is incomplete. Once the Francoist revolution takes place, the revolution must be made perpetual in order to avoid having userite support for the delegate via aid. This can only happen if the Feederist revolutionary government undergoes stages which lead to loyalty to a forum admin rather than a potentially removable delegate.

The Revolution must then undergo stages:

1. Delegate-centered rule

Under delegate-centered rule, all loyalty is focused on the newly-elected delegate, who consolidates his power by getting people onto an official offsite posted on the WFE to form the basis of the new government.

2. The implementation of incentives on the offsite for Pacificans to independently contribute to their culture. Those who coordinate this are what was known in the former NPO as the Chancellors. The Revolution must then spread to other Feeder regions, in order to keep revolutionary fervor alive and so the Userites do not attempt a conquest once the sources of all of nationstate's Regional Capital come under the control of a Feederist government. The Feederites will then be universally protected from the userite, as they will collectively have the advantage of a limitless supply of nations and thus a limitless army and culture.

This does not necessarily imply one government across the Feeders, but governments that are free of userite influences.

3. Once the Userite is vanquished, the Feederites will attain True Feederism, a state where the official offsite is so cultured that a delegate is no longer needed - and the Revolution is self-perpetuating. This will be the Feederite Utopia where all Feederites within a given region accept the legitimacy and total supremacy of one offsite and will not dare to create their own.

But first we must take down the Mooist government and put the Pacific back on the path of revolution, and onward to True Feederism.


--------

an excerpt
 
Eh?

You should certainly understand that there is no such thing as a Utopia. Feederite or otherwise. And would not such a utopia lead to futher stagnation and loss of activity in NS?

The use of userite endorsements to keep a delegate in power means the delegate must make concessions to the Userites at the expense of the Feederites and are held privy to Userite interests

I'm curious as to what those supposed concessions may be. I am certainly unaware of any such concessions, but my knowledge is of course limited (as is anyones).

The supposed division among Francoist/Feederites is interesting, but there have been disagreements over regional policy and direction in The Pacific before. At no time that I recall, has it lead to a larger schism within the ideology. The Delegate and leadership have always prevailed and continued the process of revolution in the direction guided by the Delegate.

An interesting presentation though.
 
NS politics is evolutionary. I say that the next evolution is long overdue, and its time to break the stagnation. I'm not talking some raid, or some rogue delegate, no we need a whole new government in one of the feeders. What better one than the Pacific.

You have my sword.
 
From the first sentence you fail.

There is no rebellion in The Pacific. There will be no rebellion in The Pacific.

If you wish to create a few puppets and spam the RMB then please feel free to do so, it will not change the position of the government. The RMB is not the primary means of communication within The Pacific, it has never been.

Continue to waste your breath on long speeches that do not flow and seemingly pull random conspiracy theories out of thin air. I find it somewhat amusing.
 
I do casually wonder who you are, you are clearly someone else in disguise, why don't you admit your real identity instead of hiding behind some nameless puppet. I have no problem with playing multiple persons OOC, but there is a line where it becomes cowardice.
 
Chairman Alexis, have a care with our names. You act is if you represent us. You do not. There is no rebellion in The Pacific; that much is evident. There is no Great Schism, nor is there as much chaos or confusion as some believe.
 
Pier 1:
There is no rebellion in The Pacific. There will be no rebellion in The Pacific.

Somebody is in denial. :P
Mooism?

my.php


:lol:

No revolution my lilly white arse.
 
I think the original posting is a bunch of garbage.

I personally feel Moo has tarnished Francoism, at least in my opinion, but moreso because his Senate did not mirror public unison as others had.

I had heard rumors of some being disgruntled with his leadership about two months into becoming delegate. The Old Guard was much more unified even during Pierconium's excursion into TNP.

I think the Chairman is trying to take advantage of two Senators stepping down in order to somehow stir people into believing that there is a true revolution going on in TP. From what I have gathered from former TP members, many are not happy with Moo but have little energy to oppose him.

I'm not buying Pierconium's current take on Francoism b/c it just seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Nonetheless, Moo is delegate (for now) and there still remains the verneer of Francoism in TP.
 
My "current take" on Francoism is the only take of Francoism in existance. It is derived directly from the work undertaken by the nation it is named after and the doctrine as put to paper by those that took part in its formation.

The most surprising aspect, insofar as I am concerned, to me when someone says something absurd like my interpretation is incorrect is that they fail to recognize the last act of Francos Spain in this world. He and several dozen nations of The Pacific moved into this region in order to support a sitting Delegate that was moving against the Constitutionalists. I support the right of the sitting Delegate to choose the government of the region, that is Francoism in its purest form.

Regardless of what some disgruntled Senate members might think, or even might say at this late hour of their relevance, The Pacific stands behind its Delegate. It always has and it always will.

Continue to speak on "rebellion" from your ivory towers here in the north, those that are putting effort into The Pacific know better and are not concerned with your opinion on the situation.
 
Chairman Alexis, have a care with our names. You act is if you represent us. You do not. There is no rebellion in The Pacific; that much is evident. There is no Great Schism, nor is there as much chaos or confusion as some believe.
I understand very well that I don't represent you politically. But I can still interpret the landscape in TP and outside of it. Just so you know, what I wrote falls under commentary, and you can choose to support it or not.

My "current take" on Francoism is the only take of Francoism in existance. It is derived directly from the work undertaken by the nation it is named after and the doctrine as put to paper by those that took part in its formation.

There are those who say otherwise (not just me), so you are wrong on this one.

I think the Chairman is trying to take advantage of two Senators stepping down in order to somehow stir people into believing that there is a true revolution going on in TP.

I've been agitating in the Pacific since the final days of the NPO, when they were still senators. Not to mention I formulated these ideas before they resigned as well, so, I'm sorry, what you are saying is not accurate.
 
I'm curious as to what those supposed concessions may be.  I am certainly unaware of any such concessions, but my knowledge is of course limited (as is anyones).
The "concessions" I mentioned revolve around the delegate's power base. The amount of endorsements the delegate gets from feederites is an indication of how much support there is for him. If userites endorse the delegate when revolutionary fervor falters, it means that the delegate has allowed Userites to form part of his power base. This means that a feederite delegate would then be indebted to userites for helping him stay in power.

Any questions?

The supposed division among Francoist/Feederites is interesting, but there have been disagreements over regional policy and direction in The Pacific before.  At no time that I recall, has it lead to a larger schism within the ideology.

Indeed. But there are differing interpretations as to what Francoism is nowadays. The Moo supporters claim to be the only Francoists, but many, many people say they are not.

A schism.

Eh?

You should certainly understand that there is no such thing as a Utopia.  Feederite or otherwise.  And would not such a utopia lead to futher stagnation and loss of activity in NS?

My idea of a utopia would be when the offsite is such a powerful influence that nobody could possibly challenge it any longer, even the userite, so there is no need for a delegate. At this point, the culture of the forum would be self-perpetuating. In order for this to happen, all threats must be completely eliminated for good.

Complete, absolute power to the delegate leads to absolute power to the offsite leaders (whether one of these leaders is also the delegate or not). Otherwise, there will be stagnation. Maybe this goal won't be totally accomplished, but the Feederite government could get as close to it as possible and strive for it.
 
I've been agitating in the Pacific since the final days of the NPO, when they were still senators. Not to mention I formulated these ideas before they resigned as well, so, I'm sorry, what you are saying is not accurate.

Again, I ask you to stop hiding as "Alexis".

The "concessions" I mentioned revolve around the delegate's power base. The amount of endorsements the delegate gets from feederites is an indication of how much support there is for him. If userites endorse the delegate when revolutionary fervor falters, it means that the delegate has allowed Userites to form part of his power base. This means that a feederite delegate would then be indebted to userites for helping him stay in power.

Looking at Moo's endorsement count, I see no evidence of this claim at all.

My idea of a utopia would be when the offsite is such a powerful influence that nobody could possibly challenge it any longer, even the userite, so there is no need for a delegate. At this point, the culture of the forum would be self-perpetuating. In order for this to happen, all threats must be completely eliminated for good. Complete, absolute power to the delegate leads to absolute power to the offsite leaders (whether one of these leaders is also the delegate or not). Otherwise, there will be stagnation. Maybe this goal won't be totally accomplished, but the Feederite government could get as close to it as possible and strive for it.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
 
I am not concerned with other's opinions of my position, if I state a position it is the correct one, regardless of what anyone else has to state on the matter.

You continue to post as if you have some grounds from which to speak. Until you provide some substance to support those implied claims you will continue to be just another troll that has no position except that which was spoonfeed to you.
 
Matthuis,

In short, the True Feederite State will take place - free from the Userite threat, cleansed of the Sycophants, and thus, without the need of a delegate. The True Feederite State will take place on an offsite forum fed by the Pacific's infinite masses.

Ivan,

The New Order is rising. In it will be some new faces. I am Eternal Chairman Alexis Mikhailyovich. Some people on this forum knew who I was before I came here. But that is beside the point.

Judge others according to their merits, or you will have no merits yourself.
 
The "concessions" I mentioned revolve around the delegate's power base. The amount of endorsements the delegate gets from feederites is an indication of how much support there is for him. If userites endorse the delegate when revolutionary fervor falters, it means that the delegate has allowed Userites to form part of his power base. This means that a feederite delegate would then be indebted to userites for helping him stay in power.

Any questions?

Yes.

My curiousity remains. Why didn't you provide evidence to back up the allegation of concessions ? There have been no concessions made that I am aware of, and you did not provide any specific examples of concessions. It's mearly presumptive rhetoric.

*puts on Westwind hat*
Equilism did send in the E-Army to support Moo during the forum incident between Moo and Ivan. Equilism did not and does not seek any concessions for such actions. We simply stand on our ideals of the right of regional self-determination and regional sovereignty. We oppose outside interference in regional affairs, be that among Userites or Feederites.
*takes off hat*
 
This is all crap. Why are we allowing people to attempt to ferment rebellion on our forums?

And yet from his "one pacific" "utopia" arguement, it sounds like he wants TNP too. Yet who is he to comment on grand policy? What does he know of the past to know the future?


One giant united region of feeders all run on an offsite would kill NS, as there would be no need for an NS. This is all silly. Now if we really want activity I'm all for some sort of new power to rise and a war to break out. It might be a laugh. But this, friends, isnt it
 
utopia is impossible, people and nations act in their own selfish self interest, any view contrary to that is held by those about to be run over by the people with the selfish self interest.


Utopians might as well be on drugs for all the good that view of reality does either in RL or in VL
 
Matthuis,

In short, the True Feederite State will take place - free from the Userite threat, cleansed of the Sycophants, and thus, without the need of a delegate. The True Feederite State will take place on an offsite forum fed by the Pacific's infinite masses.

Ivan,

The New Order is rising. In it will be some new faces. I am Eternal Chairman Alexis Mikhailyovich. Some people on this forum knew who I was before I came here. But that is beside the point.

Judge others according to their merits, or you will have no merits yourself.
Is that name supposed to mean something to me? I don't recognize you as having any merit from which to speak.

Any new order that tries to come up on my watch will get a firm jackboot to the face.
 
Uh, can we dispense with the Franco crap? It's getting tired and obsolete mainly because it remained static and died a long time ago?

Not only that, it's getting boring and intellectually stunting.
 
Uh, can we dispense with the Franco crap? It's getting tired and obsolete mainly because it remained static and died a long time ago?

Not only that, it's getting boring and intellectually stunting.
We all know what is "intellectually stunting" in this thread, Roman. :eyeroll:
 
I don't want TNP, just so you know.

Ivan, on the other hand....

---

OOC

If we want to get into a discussion about how this would affect NS, here it is:

This is a game. It might be fun to have an ingame society where people try to build a "utopia". The fact is, there will be a stream of enemies to fight, so warfare will be pretty commonplace for a long time, and yes, the selfishness and flaws in the "utopia" would add a little spice, and it would be a goal to conquer them. It will keep the region on its toes more than the current government.

---

*puts IC persona back on from here on*
 
Did this get posted in the other feeders, or are you here to provoke just our simultaneously-Pacifican friends?

I would not say that Francoism is not worthy of debate, but such a debate, in these halls, is more an exercise in futility than anything. Unless you honestly think that there was a slice of the populace just yearning for "NPO lite, with 30% less goosestepping."
 
Sorry, Francoism is intellectually stunting? The core of this supposed arguement is that francoism has ben developed too far away from its original theory. Or in other words, its ben intellectually developed in a way some people dont like. Isnt taht the opposite of stunting?
 
Sorry, Francoism is intellectually stunting? The core of this supposed arguement is that francoism has ben developed too far away from its original theory. Or in other words, its ben intellectually developed in a way some people dont like. Isnt taht the opposite of stunting?
Indeed.

I believe the primary disconnect between what was written well over a year ago and what exists today is that there has never been a proper doctrine established to expand from the Thought to implementation.

We are working to change that.
 
Sorry, Francoism is intellectually stunting? The core of this supposed arguement is that francoism has ben developed too far away from its original theory. Or in other words, its ben intellectually developed in a way some people dont like. Isnt taht the opposite of stunting?
Indeed.

I believe the primary disconnect between what was written well over a year ago and what exists today is that there has never been a proper doctrine established to expand from the Thought to implementation.

We are working to change that.
Now we're getting somewhere.

The problem is that most 'rebellions' (read as: revolutions) fail because of the failed doctrine that all revolutions are never-ending propositions that must be constantly maintained as 'revolutions'. That means you must either have something constant to revolt against or you must constantly have some kind of internal enemy (real or fabricated) to suppress/oppress/exterminate. The problem with that avenue of 'perpetual revolution' is that in order to perpetuate the revolution you must eventually turn on your own people and turn them into an enemy to destroy because exporting revolution only dilutes your resources in the short and long run. IOW, with the perpetual revolution, you always end up with 'all revolutions devour their own children' (a nice little quote from Ernst Röhm, and quite accurate, I might add).

I'm going to be nice to you, Perc, but only because I know how much that will irritate you. ;D

Now, if Francoism can be remade into a very attractive system that would attract so many like-minded individuals that there would be no need to even waste one's time trying to coerce one's followers or stamp out any opposition, then you would have a very, very stable TP. IOW, if you are going to create a totalitarian system, you had better solidify your position with enough loyal, un-coerced followers first so that that the malcontents are overwhelmingly outnumbered by voluntary adherents that any opposition would be meaningless and insignificant. Why use force when you can use finesse? And finesse takes a lot more skill than brute force.
 
Sorry, Francoism is intellectually stunting? The core of this supposed arguement is that francoism has ben developed too far away from its original theory. Or in other words, its ben intellectually developed in a way some people dont like. Isnt taht the opposite of stunting?
Indeed.

I believe the primary disconnect between what was written well over a year ago and what exists today is that there has never been a proper doctrine established to expand from the Thought to implementation.

We are working to change that.
Now we're getting somewhere.

The problem is that most 'rebellions' (read as: revolutions) fail because of the failed doctrine that all revolutions are never-ending propositions that must be constantly maintained as 'revolutions'. That means you must either have something constant to revolt against or you must constantly have some kind of internal enemy (real or fabricated) to suppress/oppress/exterminate. The problem with that avenue of 'perpetual revolution' is that in order to perpetuate the revolution you must eventually turn on your own people and turn them into an enemy to destroy because exporting revolution only dilutes your resources in the short and long run. IOW, with the perpetual revolution, you always end up with 'all revolutions devour their own children' (a nice little quote from Ernst Röhm, and quite accurate, I might add).

I'm going to be nice to you, Perc, but only because I know how much that will irritate you. ;D

Now, if Francoism can be remade into a very attractive system that would attract so many like-minded individuals that there would be no need to even waste one's time trying to coerce one's followers or stamp out any opposition, then you would have a very, very stable TP. IOW, if you are going to create a totalitarian system, you had better solidify your position with enough loyal, un-coerced followers first so that that the malcontents are overwhelmingly outnumbered by voluntary adherents that any opposition would be meaningless and insignificant. Why use force when you can use finesse? And finesse takes a lot more skill than brute force.
Sounds like someones been reading Machiavelli.
 
Sorry, Francoism is intellectually stunting? The core of this supposed arguement is that francoism has ben developed too far away from its original theory. Or in other words, its ben intellectually developed in a way some people dont like. Isnt taht the opposite of stunting?
Indeed.

I believe the primary disconnect between what was written well over a year ago and what exists today is that there has never been a proper doctrine established to expand from the Thought to implementation.

We are working to change that.
Now we're getting somewhere.

The problem is that most 'rebellions' (read as: revolutions) fail because of the failed doctrine that all revolutions are never-ending propositions that must be constantly maintained as 'revolutions'. That means you must either have something constant to revolt against or you must constantly have some kind of internal enemy (real or fabricated) to suppress/oppress/exterminate. The problem with that avenue of 'perpetual revolution' is that in order to perpetuate the revolution you must eventually turn on your own people and turn them into an enemy to destroy because exporting revolution only dilutes your resources in the short and long run. IOW, with the perpetual revolution, you always end up with 'all revolutions devour their own children' (a nice little quote from Ernst Röhm, and quite accurate, I might add).

I'm going to be nice to you, Perc, but only because I know how much that will irritate you. ;D

Now, if Francoism can be remade into a very attractive system that would attract so many like-minded individuals that there would be no need to even waste one's time trying to coerce one's followers or stamp out any opposition, then you would have a very, very stable TP. IOW, if you are going to create a totalitarian system, you had better solidify your position with enough loyal, un-coerced followers first so that that the malcontents are overwhelmingly outnumbered by voluntary adherents that any opposition would be meaningless and insignificant. Why use force when you can use finesse? And finesse takes a lot more skill than brute force.
Sounds like someones been reading Machiavelli.
Yes, I've read Machiavelli. The total failure of Machiavelli was that he believed the ends justified the means. That type of justification is decrepit.

In reality and practicality, the ends are meaningless if the means to that end were immoral.
 
Back
Top