Siding with the Templars

Pyrian on 25/6/2006 at 17:18

Quote:

The recruiter welcomes you and says somebody will contact you once your security clearance can be verified. Does anybody know if this choice of conversation path actually has any impact on anything in the game, or was it supposed to be some kind of joke?

It slightly changes the conversation where their head tries to recruit you, but that's it as far as I know.

Quote:

They are planning a raid on the Omar and I think your only option is to either help Leo defend the Omar or ignore the goal he gives you and stay neutral.

You can actually perform the reconnaissance and then lie to Leo! I never did, so I don't know what happens.

emg_nerd on 2/7/2006 at 19:05

Quote Posted by elkston

But we are not talking about racial intolerance or the wish to abolish other cultures.

We are talking about changing what it means to be human forever. Do you think it is wrong for some people to have a problem with that?

I was sympathetic to Billie's argument.

Sure you are, as most normal people would be. But what good is "purity" if physical adaption to your environment ends at the subconscious level?

The homo sapien sapien destiny is to evolve into gods, not to be fiends to emotional attachments that all mean nothing. There is nothing 'extraordinary' about the Templar faction, it is human nature to have paranoid, selfish, nationalistic behavior. Fanaticism like the Templars and internet forums like (http://www.stormfront.org), is just a manifestation of that fear. There's nothing "great" about them.

What you don't understand about the ending, is that the helios machine won't make the world into a "communist" state and specialize the needs of the weak and penalize the strong, it will, with the help of JC and Alex's dna, mutate everyone into "truly equal beings, in both body and mind". We know what nanotechnology is capable of, so it's just a matter of time before the ending to that game is realized. God status is human destiny, regardless of how long it takes.

The reason JC's plan was forced upon everyone, was because of people like you that refuse to let go of pride for a better cause. It would have to be forced upon you.

emg_nerd on 2/7/2006 at 19:23

Quote Posted by elkston

Actually, I hated how they did this. They purposely made these parallels to make it easy for us to "hate" the Templars when in fact, their goal of elminating biomodification is not necessarily evil.

It would have been much more interesting to have the arugment of "pure humans" be presented without mixing it up in fanaticism.

...and I don't buy the whole "slippery slope to racial intolerance in general" that is hinted at by the Templar ending either.

Neither do I. Fanaticism like the Templars isn't a racial thing, it's a selfish, survival-of-the-fittest form of dementia.

I'm willing to bet that the guy that hung at the ending cut scene was white. Maybe an "anti", if you will. Someone who disagreed with the far, radical right.

I don't necessarily think that most of the templars are evil aside from the leader, they are only doing what they think they have to do to survive. But, their laziness and unwillingness to admit there are better ways to deal with life is no excuse to murder, especially with all the opportunities for them to actually take control of the media and turn it around for good, rather then comitting genocide.

Nationalism is hurting america, it isn't helping it. National Socialism is human nature: a nations fate is decided by the majority of it's people. Nationalism is just a form of homogenous, capitalistic communism. I do see this as a bad thing for human evolution.

National Socialism wouldn't have such a bad reputation if the nazis weren't lied about so much.

TheGreatGodPan on 2/7/2006 at 20:19

What did the Templars have to do with nationalism?

Rogue Keeper on 3/7/2006 at 15:46

Quote Posted by emg_nerd

Nationalism is just a form of homogenous, capitalistic communism. I do see this as a bad thing for human evolution.

National Socialism wouldn't have such a bad reputation if the nazis weren't lied about so much.

I believe with "capitalistic communism" you mean Fascism.

If you examine the political spectrum, the opposite of COMMUNISM (extremist leftism) is FASCISM (extremist rightism), not Nationalism itself. Nationalism itself doesn't include economical concepts of the state, it is not an economic ideology. It can be theoretically attached either to left wing parties or right wing parties, but more to right wing conservative parties, as leftists are usually internationalists.

Nationalism is an ideological movement for the attainment and maintenance of autonomy, unity, and identity of a human population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential “nation”. In other words, it's extreme patriotism.

Quote:

Fascism, form of totalitarianism that seeks the strict regimentation of national and individual existence in accordance with nationalist and often militarist ideals; conflicting interests being adjusted by total subordination to the service of the state and unquestioning loyalty to its leader. In contrast to the left-wing totalitarianisms identified with Communism, fascism draws its ideas and form from extreme conservatism. Fascist regimes often resemble—and sometimes change into—dictatorships, military governments, or authoritarian tyrannies, but fascism itself is distinguishable from any of these as a specifically political movement and doctrine often maintained by political parties out of power. Fascism emhasizes nationalism, but it's appeal has been international (...)
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

National Socialism is basicaly recognized as a form Fascism, enriched by racist ideas and all that Hitler's crap about purity of the Aryan race. It also emerged from perversion of leftists ideas (after Hitler gained control of German Worker's Party).

National Socialism wouldn't have such a bad reputation if...?
It was a decadent pastiche from it's very basic ideas, even though the term "national socialism" itself may sound innocent.

TheGreatGodPan on 3/7/2006 at 20:16

Don't blame Hitler solely for perverting leftist ideas into fascism. Mussolini himself was one of the most important communists in Italy before becoming a fascist, and before him a lot of the ideas in fascism came from what both Stalinists and Trotskyites considered the "extreme left": anarcho-syndicalism. The "conservative" roots of fascism are largely in the "corporatism" discussed in papal encyclicals, which have their roots in the ideas of guild-socialism. Oddly enough, they are pretty much completely at odds with that other primarily Catholic economic doctrine of distributism. I myself try to shy away from such rather meaningless terms as "left" or "right", and even "liberalism" as its meaning in post-FDR America is quite different from its Enlightenment era origin or its meaning throughout much of the world today. I wish I could take back the word and what some call "liberals" would just stick to calling themselves "progressives".

EDIT: With regards to "capitalistic communism", that is how some communists desribed Stalinism. The only way they can avoid admitting the obvious failure of communism is by calling it capitalism.

Rogue Keeper on 4/7/2006 at 09:35

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

Don't blame Hitler solely for perverting leftist ideas into fascism. Mussolini himself was one of the most important communists in Italy before becoming a fascist,

It's not so clear... Mussolini was jailed for his opposition to Italy's war in Libya. Soon after that, he was appointed editor of a Socialist party newspaper in Milan. When World War I began, Mussolini first denounced it as “imperialist”, but he soon reversed himself, regarding the potential fall of France as a threat to European liberty, and called for Italy's entry on the Allied side. He joined the army as a sniper, but was wounded, and returned home a convinced anti-Socialist. Expelled from the Socialist party, he started his own newspaper in Milan, which later became the organ of the Fascist movement.
So he willingly denounced Socialist ideals, it wasn't their direct perversion as in Hitler's case, who has adapted leftist program of the German Worker's Party to his own needs.

Also, don't forget they both have persecuted proper Socialists and Communists. Fascism has a clear anti-socialist, anti-communist agenda.

Quote:

...and before him a lot of the ideas in fascism came from what both
Stalinists and Trotskyites considered the "extreme left": anarcho-syndicalism. The "conservative" roots of fascism are largely in the "corporatism" discussed in papal encyclicals, which have their roots in the ideas of guild-socialism.

And corporatism is created by privileged burgeosie and elite. But what about nationalism? Isn't nationalism an extreme conservative feature?
Stalin was an extremist himself, I wouldn't give a copper for what he thought is an „extreme left“. I understand though he saw Anarcho-Syndicalist movement as a threat, because while they shared basically the same revolutionary ideas as Communists (focus on the labour movement, trade unionism, revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism with new society democratically self-managed by workers, etc), they were basically Anarchists, strongly opposted to the state power, and it wasn't smelling good to somebody who liked to hold authoritative power.

Quote:

I myself try to shy away from such rather meaningless terms as "left" or "right", and even "liberalism" as its meaning in post-FDR America is quite different from its Enlightenment era origin or its meaning throughout much of the world today.

Yes, the terms left and right have quite a diferent meaning in the US and Europe. American liberals (which are called leftists in the US) would be in European conditions merely centre-to-left-leaning social democrats, while „proper“ liberals in Europeans conditions are nearly perfect centrists (it may vary from country to country though). It creates a bit confusion sometimes, when Euros and Amercans talk about politics.

Quote:

With regards to "capitalistic communism", that is how some communists desribed Stalinism. The only way they can avoid admitting the obvious failure of communism is by calling it capitalism.

That's new to me. But then, there are more opinional streams in the left, just as there are more interpretations and visions of Socialism and Communism. Marx himself is undergoing a large revision these days and it leads to reformation of Socialist and Communist ideas and movemets everywhere. Of course, there are some who are too slow for that and prefer to worship Leninist/Stalinist Bolshevism, their obsolescence and nostalgia for authoritaranism is their problem.

TheGreatGodPan on 5/7/2006 at 05:51

I suppose I should correct myself in saying that Mussolini was a not a communist, but he was a socialist. He was actually jailed for vagrancy in Switzerland, but he was avoiding military service at the time. He was the editor of several socialist papers and an official socialist functionary, as was his father before him. As far as I can see, Italy never went to war with Libya between Mussolini's birth and 1911, which was years after his arrest (between 1902 and 1909). His service in the military was during World War 1, in which Italy was allied with England and France against Germany, and he was injured during grenade practice, after which he returned to his newspaper editorship.

Fighting with communists and socialists is, to me, insufficient for establishing someone not be either. They fight all the time. While a Menshevik, Trotskyite, Stalinist, Maoist, Hoxhaist, Khmer Rougist and Jucheist might all dissagree over who is a real communist or Marxist-Leninist, we can pretty safely lump them all in (I didn't bother mentioning anarcho-communists, because I don't think they count). Ernst Rohm and the Strasserites never deny being fascists/nazis, and to the outsider such differences within the movement seem insufficient for stating that the label should only apply to some of them. Nor does Austrofascist resistance to Nazi annexation or China's invasion of Vietnam mean any of the regimes can't follow the same broad ideology as another.

Corporatism (as in the doctrine derived from certain papal encyclicals) should not be ascribed to the bourgeousie, if we are following the divisions from the French Revolution, but the clerical estate. I think that's somewhat quibbling though, as most of the labels from the French revolution (left/right is an example I discussed earlier) are ill-fitting for modern politics. Such allegiance to outdated concepts results in the labeling of peasant Kulaks as bourgeouisie to fit political goals and the Maoist International Movement's division of virtually all Americans into the "labor aristocracy" and lumpenproletariat, both of whom are class enemies.

I don't see nationalism as inherently right-wing/conservative/anti-socialist. Many socialist movements (generally opposed to Stalin's "socialism in one country") are officially internationalist, but the succesful ones (especially the anti-imperialist ones, almost by necessity) exploit nationalism. If you asked me who is more nationalist, Hugo Chavez or Dubya, the answer is Chavez in a landslide. Castroesque demonization of the "Yanqui imperalists" takes it hands down over the perverted Trotskyism of neo-conservatism's worldwide vision of democracy watered down through the pillar of mediocrity that occupies the White House. It is really though the succesors of the nationalist, syndicalist, Marxist and proto-fascist Georges Sorel that socialism (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I) manages to survive today.

emg_nerd on 5/7/2006 at 23:36

Quote Posted by BR796164

I said homogenous.

Quote:

Nationalism is an ideological movement for the attainment and maintenance of autonomy, unity, and identity of a human population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential “nation”. In other words, it's extreme patriotism.

... which leads to capitalism.

Quote:

There was nothing "racist" or "hateful" about the nazi party. "aryans" ARE the leaders of humanity. They have the most geniuses and are the fathers of civilization. They should also have a right to have their own nations, especially one that was as great as germany during WWII.

Quote:

National Socialism wouldn't have such a bad reputation if...?
It was a decadent pastiche from it's very basic ideas, even though the term "national socialism" itself may sound innocent.

Yes, it's a basic idea. That's because it's what works for whites.

TheGreatGodPan on 6/7/2006 at 01:30

The Nazi party was pretty much always hateful. Of course, to me, all revolutionary communists seem obviously hateful. Communists tend to deny racism, as they have roots in internationalism, but they can usually channel their base racism into good & proper communist hate toward "class enemies", but nazism is pretty openly racist.

emg, you really need to get your head straightened out. I can avoid white-guilt and pc self-delusion and recognize the realities of race/human biodiversity/group differences, but that doesn't mean buying into nazi nonsense. The Germans did pretty well for a while, but not nearly as well as England. Also there's not much point in calling them "Aryans". The term should be reserved for the people that invaded the formerly Dravidic subcontinent of India (although there's controversy about what actually happened back then). Their connection with 20th century Germans is extremely tenous.

Civilization wasn't invented by Aryans or Northern Europeans either. The "cradle of civilization" was inhabited by Semitic peoples, which the Jews (who, at least the Ashkenazi, have a higher average IQ than Germans) and Arabs claim descent from. The Chinese also had quite a civilization going before anything in Europe can compare, and northeastern asians still have higher IQs on average. That isn't everything though, which is why Hong Kong and mainland China were so different for so long and North and South Korea are so different today. Taking the data from "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", average IQ actually comes out to be less correlated with GDP than position in the Fraser index of economic freedom. I hesitate to sound like a blank-slater bleating about "social construction of [insert whatever here]", but the system in which people live is at least as significant as the people in the system, and the system shapes the people (to a certain extent) just as people shape the system.

Some ideas, no matter how otherwise great the people implementing them are, are just plain horrible and will never work. Totalitarianism is a subset of just such ideas.