Francoism, then and now

[Holton]

Credit due to those who came before for the inspiration to write this post.

 

Introduction: Francoism, as a concept, began over fifteen years ago. It was crafted, molded, and shaped to fit the material evidence presented before it. Over those fifteen years, the term has become convoluted and some may say distorted or even completely dismantled. This writing will set out to analyze the new material evidence that our more modern world presents us.

 

The New Classes: The originator of the philosophy used two terms that I will now invoke: Userite and Feederite. These terms may not carry their meaning into new worlds, but they still carry the intent. The Feederite class (the individual nations), seeking to harness and work with the means of production (forming alliances in pursuit of higher goals) has been re-shackled by their oppressors. The Userite class that seeks to suppress, intimidate, bribe, lull, or otherwise exploit the Feederite class is just as real now as it was then - though they take different form.

 

The Great Deception: The greatest deception of our time was the Userite convincing us he did not exist. The Userites have slipped through the protections we once erected to shield ourselves from their exploitation. They have deceived us - perhaps even themselves - into believing that security could only be achieved through unity. Unity can only be achieved through the surrendering of freedom. And finally that freedom was tantamount to a dream - ethereal and unattainable. They did this is many ways, some even offering elections so the Feederites could choose who would shepherd the flock - all while remaining the sheep.

 

The Art of Oppression: You may be saying 'I see no oppression' but that is in lockstep with the Userite intent. The oppression of the Feederites is as real now as it was then. The Userites collect nations under their banner using words like 'OPSEC' or 'classified' to obfuscate their actions until they've already committed your nation to their path. They hide away from the "useful idiots" and make the decisions for the collective without so much as a vote. They offer the pretense that democracy, free speech, and even knowing what they intend to do with your own nation is a waste of time and actually counter-productive to their goals as a whole. All the while, presenting these ideas as par for the course for any "competent" grouping. Most go so far as to suggest that a true feederite alliance cannot exist. That the many must be controlled by the few and there can be no other way. It is in this world that we currently live and accept.

 

The Truth: The fact remains that no alliance could operate without individual member cooperation. The individual of this world is the Nation - the Feederite - not the alliance. The Truth is that the alliance is an extension of the Nation's voice. Not the opposite. Every member, no matter their age or disposition, has a right to the determination of their fate.

 

While these words may no longer be called Francoism by its practitioners, the ideals cannot be denied. It falls to the Feederite to wake up and determine their own destiny or continue to be condemned to a world where a select few make all our choices for us.

 

 

[Prezyan]

Francoism is just how NPO plays off their communism.

 

i like it

Edited November 6, 2017 by Prezyan

[Prefonteen]

This looks like a poor man's low effort Francoism.

 

10/10

[Placentica]

Can you explain Francoism more at length.  I'm dying to know more about this fresh idea I've never heard about before.

[Anneal]

TL;DR everyone in NPO are Spanish fascists.

[Guest Frawley]

The biggest issue with your analysis, is that it presupposes that a conclusion from a material analysis of another world is a starting point for the analysis of this one.  The existence of Userites & Feederites is established by the use of Francoist methods in that world, but it is only valid under certain assumptions, specifically:

1. Where certain 'Regions' are definitionally special, as is the case with Feeders.
2. That by virtue of this status, the relationship between those in control and those without power is involuntary
3. That this class conflict is unavoidable, even after a popular revolution, but that only alliances that have gone through such revolution are placed to recognise this fact.

Its pretty clear that when you consider the material conditions of Orbis, that 1 & 2 are invalid at the very minimum (3 could be valid, if argued differently), and therefore you draw a false equivalence between the situations.  Vladimir acknowledges in his later introductions to Proper Francoist Thought that these facts do not exists in other such games, and thus the conclusions of the analysis are not valid elsewhere.

If you wanted to apply Francoist principles and come up with half a logically consistent argument, you could look at P&W like this.  (I am not supporting this btw, and the data doesn't exist to substantiate item 2 at the very minimum)

1. Leadership within alliances appears to remain static over time
2. This leadership is demonstrably not in the interests of the average individuals
3. Most individuals who are not leadership are either too inactive to change this situation, or understand that living without an Alliance (or a small one) in the state of chaos, is a larger imposition on their sovereignty (e.g. being raided constantly is worse than the occasional leadership driven war)
4. That due to the raiding outside established alliances, there is a defacto involuntariness in the relationship between leaders and the members.

Now this could be construed as a start to an equivalence between the systems, but it falls apart pretty quickly once you consider how regularly new alliances come into being and indeed succeed in (mostly) removing themselves from the 'state of nature', or how easily it is for individuals to change allegiances

Anyway, your analysis is bad, has the wrong starting point, and is not Francoism.  Get your own ideology.

[Holton]

16 minutes ago, Frawley said:

The biggest issue with your analysis, is that it presupposes that a conclusion from a material analysis of another world is a starting point for the analysis of this one.  The existence of Userites & Feederites is established by the use of Francoist methods in that world, but it is only valid under certain assumptions, specifically:

1. Where certain 'Regions' are definitionally special, as is the case with Feeders.
2. That by virtue of this status, the relationship between those in control and those without power is involuntary
3. That this class conflict is unavoidable, even after a popular revolution, but that only alliances that have gone through such revolution are placed to recognise this fact.

Its pretty clear that when you consider the material conditions of Orbis, that 1 & 2 are invalid at the very minimum (3 could be valid, if argued differently), and therefore you draw a false equivalence between the situations.  Vladimir acknowledges in his later introductions to Proper Francoist Thought that these facts do not exists in other such games, and thus the conclusions of the analysis are not valid elsewhere.

If you wanted to apply Francoist principles and come up with half a logically consistent argument, you could look at P&W like this.  (I am not supporting this btw, and the data doesn't exist to substantiate item 2 at the very minimum)

1. Leadership within alliances appears to remain static over time
2. This leadership is demonstrably not in the interests of the average individuals
3. Most individuals who are not leadership are either too inactive to change this situation, or understand that living without an Alliance (or a small one) in the state of chaos, is a larger imposition on their sovereignty (e.g. being raided constantly is worse than the occasional leadership driven war)
4. That due to the raiding outside established alliances, there is a defacto involuntariness in the relationship between leaders and the members.

Now this could be construed as a start to an equivalence between the systems, but it falls apart pretty quickly once you consider how regularly new alliances come into being and indeed succeed in (mostly) removing themselves from the 'state of nature', or how easily it is for individuals to change allegiances

Anyway, your analysis is bad, has the wrong starting point, and is not Francoism.  Get your own ideology.

Try reading past the title before attempting to refute.

[Guest Frawley]

28 minutes ago, Holton said:

Try reading past the title before attempting to refute.

I did, you start by saying the right things, then jump to the same conclusion you have had in every alliance you have been in over the last decade, 'Oppression!'.

Then you conflate your opinion with Francoism to lend it Authority while ignoring the analysis part.

You state that 'Userites' have had all this done to them over a numbers of paragraphs but provide no substantial evidence other than your direct statements.