The Malignant Incursion of RL Politics into R/D

INTRODUCTION

On May 24, League of Christian Nations was invaded by a two-party coalition of The Communist Bloc's (TCB) People's Revolutionary Air Force (PRAF), and NSLeft's military organisation: The Red Fleet (TRF). The invaders and liberating forces have since been locked in a stalemate. The public discourse on the matter, however, has been much more fiery, having since developed into several forum pages of debate on the community, real-life politics, and the usual rhetorical back-and-forths between disagreeing parties on both sides. Despite how eye-bogglingly confusing and controversial this saga might appear to the outside onlooker, experienced gameplayers are now unfortunately all too familiar with this pattern of events. The nature of these conversations are rooted in what is now a growing blurriness between IRL ideological motives in R/D and in-character conflicts, stemming from a culture that has sprung up from within certain raider elements over the past few years. After reading this article, you should have a better understanding of this pernicious pattern pulsing through R/D, and the dangerous implications behind it..

Nationstates has, since its inception, been tied in one way or another to real-life political views and events, be it through satirical April Fools events, issues, or wild General forum threads. This extends to R/D as well - since its very beginnings, ideology has played some role in R/D, with soviet/nazi clashes defining early "military" conflicts and infamous ideological regions like the Red Liberty Alliance (RLA) headlining early R/D development and conflicts.

Fortunately, R/D and real-life politics have since vastly diverged; as history suggests, when IRL ideology and R/D mix, things get ugly fast, culminating in forum destruction, nasty OOC attacks, and more. Instead, NSGP has often come together instead in inspiring shows of force against disgusting ideologues, setting records in anti-fascist operations like the raid of Genua and destruction of Layem. When we come together against the ugliness that can spawn from excessive IRL-dogmatism, R/D can manifest as a force for good.

To maintain the sanctity of anti-fascist operations, defender and raiders have, at least in modern history, worked together to ensure that these operations do not lead to conflict between the two factions. A "Do-Not-Defend" process exists in which organizations interested in carrying out anti-fascist operations can request non-participation from defender forces. Though this process tends to require more weight behind the request than a simple embassy with fascist regions or vague ties, most requests are easily cleared, and oftentimes defenders comfortable with conducting offensive operations join in.

The addition of The Communist Bloc to headliner R/D operations has complicated matters. The Communist Bloc's military, the People's Revolutionary Air Force (PRAF) has relatively strict operational guidelines that largely confine the organization's operational purview to offensive operations on explicitly "right-wing" regions and defensive operations for "left-wing" regions. However, their presence has been increasingly frequent in large-scale operations, and in nearly each one, PRAF members have turned out in full force under the impression that their target falls under the operational criteria - probably because their leaders continue to insist so. In some regions, like in the March 2023 raid of England, the claims are threadbare, relying on eyebrow-raising allegations concerning native nation names and "Anglo-nationalism" to justify participation that didn't quite map on to reality. In others, such as the August 2023 raid of Magna Aurea, the problematic individuals and embassies in question were removed, and yet the PRAF stayed to see through the refound attempt, putting into question to what degree IRL ideology serves as a legitimate basis for their actions.

PART I: SOLIDARITY NARRATIVES

Perhaps the answer lies in The Communist Bloc's response to the invasion of Solidarity, the NSLeft frontier targeted for its designation as a military recruitment hub for TCB (corresponding article, October 2023).

The efforts of TCB to recapture the frontier remained unsupported by their raider allies, and eventually were abandoned without success. Most notable alongside the failed military efforts were the accusations levied at those who participated in the Solidarity occupation. Despite the justifications for the war and the association of Solidarity with TCB having no roots in OOC ideology whatsoever, then Air Marshal (PRAF leader) Mlakhavia, aka Sleet, implied the occupation to be motivated by anti-communism. Similarly, current Air Marshal New Astri, aka Iota, then a military officer, expressed understanding that the occupation was not motivated by real-life political leanings, but just a day later decided to purport exactly the opposite, claiming the Solidarity occupation was a reaction to TCB's opposition to the real-life ideology of Conservatism.

This framing was widely used as a propaganda tool to try and mobilise forces for Solidarity's attempted recapture. The Social Liberal Union of NSLeft even alleged in a propaganda post that the occupiers "tacitly support fascists". In further response to the operation, TRF updated their policy document (opens google doc) to add the participants to their 'Prohibited Regions' list for "actions against the interregional left and/or anti-fascist operations." In other words, what started as an IC conflict was drawn into the realm of real-life politics by TCB and its allies, irregardless of the motivations laid out by the other side.

PART II: LEAGUE OF CHRISTIAN NATIONS

Now to discuss the context of the current day. Libcord organised a first liberation attempt for the League of Christian Nations on the first update after the capture by PRAF and TRF. Soon after, discussion erupted on the merits of the raid in a since-withdrawn Liberation proposal's thread, drafted independently by The North Pacific's acting Delegate: Simone Republic.

Substantiation for the alleged problematic conduct of the raided community, provided only by a person whose organisations are not involved in the raid, came down to RMB posts from about 4-6 years ago, from random natives that have CTE'd a similar length of time ago. A proper discussion on the merits of the raid was interrupted and distracted from by familiar accusations of anti-leftism and pro-conservatism levied by TCB's Air Marshal. Another raider, former Astorian leadership figure Rosartemis, goes even further, saying that: "At this point, the only conclusion to draw is that defenders (or at least the commanders manipulating their poor soldiers into this utterly unjustifiable action) are inherently opposed to leftist efforts." They go on to make other claims completely detached from reality, such as: "If any other raider region had handled this, your lot [here referring to The League] wouldn't have touched it," despite a large number of League Defense Force updaters contributing to the liberation of the same region under occupation from the Lone Wolves United last year.

Contrary to the implications of raiders, Libcord does not decide its intervention on behalf of a community based on the perpetrators of a raid or their political leanings. It should not come as a surprise that this particular region has been liberated thrice before from occupiers that were not TCB or NSLeft. Considerations for a Do-not-Defend declaration on a region are based on an assessment of that region's community through its prominent members, leadership, relations, iconography, branding, moderation, etc. Rather than discussing whether 2-3 members of a community are representative, whether members that stopped contributing years ago should still be considered part of a region's community, or whether attitudes from sometimes over a decade ago were and are still prevalent in the region, we instead see accusations that the considerations must have been about leftism and conservatism instead.

PART III: CONCLUSION

The slew of allegations that Defending is motivated by opposition to real-life political beliefs was used in Solidarity to distract from an IC war. It now continues its purpose in a different way: preventing a merit-based discussion on whether the defense of an occupation is warranted or not. Defending against an occupation executed in the name of leftism causes you to be painted as pro-conservative, anti-leftist, and in cases like Solidarity, a tacit supporter of fascism.

The inability of raiders to separate IC from OOC is manifesting in what is effectively an OOC shield for IC actions. Be it the operation of a frontier or the staging of an occupation, you cannot challenge them without also challenging the underlying motivations of real-life politics that they insert in their endeavours. The prevailing narrative among this subsection of raiderdom attempts to subsume all considerations, be they IC or OOC, into the realm of the raider's particular OOC political motivations. The nuance of both OOC and IC debate are lost to the dogmatic anti-leftist accusations, making it an exceptionally easy way to distract from any conflict.

It has become more important than ever to take a critical look at the narratives at play. Don't let false and baseless distractions lead you away from the true reasons we fight, which is for the sovereignty of innocent regions and for our security and that of our allies. We defend not because we support Christianity, but because we support Aegis. We attack TCB not because they're communist, but because they waged war on our ally. Bad actors will try to use real-life politics as a shield, but it is our job to see through that when it's false, and play the game instead.

!!!

ForumCitizenshipCivil ServiceNavyWorld AssemblyRadioDiscord