Intergalactic Summit

Actually, the "mother" in this scenario might likely say, "thank you", and do so with a Matari accent.

Im grateful the Federation had the heart, the decency, and yes the arrogance and audacity to do the very actions you decry, at least when it came to aiding my People.

In short, as much as you like to try to undercut simple and vulgar morality and humanity Jenneth, there are many in the Cluster who still value it.

I for one am grateful for the Federations' bravery and morality in aiding the Matari regain what was once theirs. I believe Jenneth-haani was referring to another incident, however.

Madam Jenneth,

You are correct in one thing, there has never existed nor shall there ever exist any such thing as intrinsic, universal or fundamental human rights. Such a misconception arose only due to the flawed liberalism established under Rouvenor III and promulgated by the sophist-philosophers of Cylle. It has in the intervening centuries taken on the character of a truth that should be self-evident, a creed that is accepted without thinking, a false dogma that should never be questioned. The fundamental truth that fundamental human rights are not derived from the laws of the universe but rather from the laws of men and the bodies of work that we create is still resisted with all the fervour of doctrinal thought by many in the Federation of today. One needs only look at the collapse of Garoun and the chaos that it brought to see how the empty promises of inherent rights and individualism rapidly lead to the decay and corruption of an ordered, strong and stable society.

Rights have always been conferred by the rulers upon those that are ruled. The methods of heirarchy and the distribution of power may differ but all rights flow from society and the body politic and it is a largesse that is bestowed on the individual that requires communal recognition, definition and acceptance - not an inherent privilege that is to be expected. This is to be accepted for it is only the community, society and a lawful government that is capable of both defending and enforcing rights as defined as part of a social contract and legal system, anything else is frankly barbarism and anarchy. What becomes confusing is when distinctions are not made between value systems and the rights which are derived from them. For a piece which claims to assert, "Small Truths" about the Gallente and which then speaks of rights in the Federation without elaboration into the history and tradition of the Gallente from which they have been derived is either ignorance at best or propaganda at worst.

When every soldier in the Federation still salutes the Imperial Eagle of Garoun it is a facetious sentiment to express that liberalism and democracy came to the Gallente as the result of living lives of liesure on a verdant garden world. Empires are forged with fire and steel, blood and death, and Garoun was no different. Visitors to Caille may remark how calm is the surface of the Stomeve today, but so little remember that its banks were once where armies died by duty's ditch as the fallen drowned the waters of their life into the currents of the Kingdom of Rouvenor. That there was a time when even my own ancestors would raze entire settlements to their very foundations on the edicts of Garoun and put to the sword those that they did not take as hostage, captive or slave, and that slavery was once practiced not only by Garoun but by practically every single Gallentean feudal city-state until its abolishment by Rouvenor III. That for centuries the Gallente were defined not by the absence of War, but rather the absence of Peace and the only true constants were conflict and conquest.

The modern conception of rights in the Federation finds its basis in the reforms of Rouvenor III and the collapse of the Garoun Empire. It is the product of Caillean liberalism that arose from the thinking and philosophies of radical democrats in the wake of the fall of Garoun and the concept of universal rights was directly linked to the Caillean democrats doctrine of universal suffrage which lead to revolution and civil war against conservative aristocrat and royalist factions. Universal rights, as a system of political thought, is by its very nature intended to be an imposition against heirarchal power irrespective of the inherent value and importance such heirarchy may have for the traditional cultural life of a society. In this it can be seen how Caillean liberalism failed the Caldari, continues to fail the Jin-Mei, Mannar and Intaki and, to a greater extent, it has failed the Federation.

For when it is held that the individual is separate and distinct from the society and people from which they are born, that rights are universal and not part of a consensual system of governance as dictated by the polity then it inculcates the belief that the individual owes nothing to the community of which they form part and that duty lies not in the greater good but duty only to selfish desires and the pursuit of individual gain. The true nature of Caillean liberalism is the corruption and decay of history, culture and tradition that began with the fall of Garoun, continued with the globalization of Gallentean nation-states and now exists as the prevalent unquestioned dogma of the Federation. The legacy of Caillean liberal democracy and the Gallentean nation-state have conspired to breed in the Federation a system where cultural assimilation is used to effect consensus through the imposition of values as opposed to integration under a fair and just legal framework that applies equally to all as was once used by Garoun and Rouvenor.

To the detriment of the Federal Dominions, the inability to question the validity of Caillean liberalism and the self-evident truths of universal rights and suffrage has led only to continued erosion of culture and society where what once was glorious has become faded; what once was virtuous has become forgotten; boldness and audacity replaced with temerity and cowardice; a Federation that has become weak and broken.

(cont.)

Well spoken. Idealism will not defend the Federation when the time comes, only overwhelming military might and firepower will.

You refuted my pained "not always" with a glad "not always." Do we, then, disagree?

You mistake my "principle," a little, Gottii. It's not that "action based in simple morality will cause harm." It's that things are often more complicated than that simple morality would have them be.

If anything, the dynamics within and among nation states make families look simple.

I think you will find, if you read my remarks again, that I regretted the lack of "meddling" in my own case, though the neighbors were "outsiders" by the standards of the place and time.

I do not call for a principle of inaction, Gottii; only for a principle of care.

I fear that you've missed my point, sir. Only the most arrogant amongst us thinks that they are directly and undeniably right at all times. Most of us, when pressed, will admit that we are likely wrong on some point, and would change our minds if the right evidence came along. This is, in fact, the heart of the problem. We claim that we are willing to change our mind, and in so doing can feel comfortable in not doing so - it puts the owness of changing our mind on others. To my mind, this is the heart of disagreement.

I have not meant any word in spite or condescension, sir, and I apologize if it was interpreted as such. I did my best to keep my words mild. Though it risks causing offense again, I would gently suggest that your feelings of outrage are indicative of my statements being contrary to a deeply-held belief of yours, and is a sign that you should examine it more closely.

I hope you find the path to truth, Captain Drengist. If you do, please let me know so that I can follow you on it.

Mister Gottii,

First, I wish to express the wisdom behind your words and my agreement to this particular sentiment, that great harm comes from inaction more oft than action and that it is preferable to try and fail than not try at all.

I understand the perception that the Amarr seek only to force others to do our bidding for their own good, and I have no doubt that it has been expressed as such by many Amarr themselves. This is disheartening for it is both wicked and unfaithful to the truth behind our motivations. I would not seek to usurp this discussion with the affairs of our own struggles and conflict but I would ask the opportunity to speak with you over a different discussion or even in a more personal setting (over the fluid router, for instance) if you could find it in yourself to grant me, an Amarr, this request.

If you wish it Lord Amith, I would speak with you. Though I've little idea what you wish to gain from such a conversation. Im quite set in my ways as a heathen. But little harm could be done in being a diplomatic heathen, I suppose.


As for Vikarion, you must have missed the part where I said "Care and how and when you intervene is of course essential."

You say that action for the sake of action is meaningless, and that one should be aware of the limits of ones ability to affect change, and such, of which I agree with, quite readily. You mentioned that waiting for the right time and place and time to discern the right course of action is important, and, again, I agree. There are limits to what we can change, and should try to change.

Though, that being said, such knowledge is learned from trial and error as much as foresight. Alas, we are born savage creatures, and try to learn how to be more than such in our Walk. It takes practice, and mistakes, and learning from those mistakes.

Then you warned me about rescuing sociopaths, and the dangers therein, and I will make it a point to try not to rescue sociopaths in the future.

Gottii:

Apologies for taking so long to respond.

Much of what you say seems sensible at face value, and certainly understandable-- even mandatory-- given your people's history. I'll come to that in time, and I'm sure we'll have plenty to say to each other when I do.

For the present: you say that international relations are less complicated than dealing with domestic violence. I am not sure that is true.

Domestic violence (beyond the usual, troublesome historical and cultural differences over whether it's okay to physically discipline dependents) entails at least one badly damaged participant: the abuser. Leaving the "good" or "evil" of the situation out of it (you'll excuse me if I remember Father as something slightly more ambiguous than "evil"), there's little question that the family is ... broken. Damaged. It does not function well on its own terms.

This "broken" -ness can be laid predominantly at the feet of the abuser (though one or more of the abused may believe themselves responsible). In this case, nearly any change, including the forcible division of the family by order of civil authorities, is probably preferable to the status quo.

Though you may think otherwise, I know of no present nation-- not the core powers, not the outer ones-- that is so unambiguously broken. The sole exception is Sansha's Nation, and that's only because it's ... well, Mastered ... by the ultimate domineering father-figure.

Look at any nation that does, basically, what it is supposed to do, that is, provide civilization, and you're looking at a functional nation-state. Interfere in that, and you have problems, almost all of which fit under the heading of "unintended consequences" and entail fun things like backlash, multi-generational grudges, and chaos. These are not predictable or reliably avoided by any means, aside from staying out of the mess to begin with.

Even getting involved where there is no civilization to speak of is begging for trouble, not only for yourself, but also for the people you'd like to be helping.

There is no level of caution that is safe, here, Gottii, and no good deed that is likely to go unpunished.

You speak of Patriot isolationism as though it were something amoral, blind to a suffering universe. The argument has been made often enough that we should each look after our own, first, but that seems to rhetorically assume that "our own" situation is fixable to a degree where we'd be situated to look after others. I think the better answer is this:

We look after those we best know how to help.

I'll look forward to discussing with you what you plan to do for or with the Empire, once it is conquered. It seems to me that there is one people about that has great experience helping those who do not know that they need help and civilizing those who already think themselves civilized. The Gallente have tried, many times, and not always succeeded. Your own experience aside, the Amarr have a less troubled track record when it comes to extinguishing the factors that would cause strife between a people and its ... liberators.

I wonder how much you intend to emulate them.

Something seems to be a repeat trend in this discussion which I've found amusing.

People (and with some valid points to their argument) critisise the Federation, stating how it attempts to force it's opinion and way of life on others, and yet at the same time are stating their opinion of how the Federation should be acting and how it should grow and develop.

There's a beautiful piece of irony there that makes me wonder how many of the Federations ideals are rejected because people disagree with them, or out of principle for who's ideals they're tagged to be.


Having an opinion, having a belief, having the self given right to think or choose how you feel about something isn't a Federation or Gallentian ideal. It's part of being human. What our different societies do is merely apply pressure through various means into trying to get you to believe that you want these things or not. They cannot stop you from doing it, but they can put you off the idea.


For example, the State will go on about how (and I paraphrase at the roughest and most basic level here, but you get the gist) "Liberty and freedom are Federal ideals, and the Federation is bad." By tying these notions to the Federation and the Federation being de-facto everything you as a good citizen of the State don't want to be like! You're put off the idea.

Try telling a Matari that freedom and liberty are Federal ideals, I'm pretty sure they didn't need the Federation to put the thought in their heads that this was what they wanted for themselves.