Intergalactic Summit

An implication was made that I, as a member of Pyre Falcon suffer from an inferiority complex towards an organization such as I-RED which amused me because we appear to be doing far more with far less by comparison. This is aside the fact that at least I do as I say in defense of the State -- it was your organization and diplomat that once advocated the firing upon the Shiigeru over the Homeworld only to wax lyrical about the sheer tragedy of what happened to Admiral Yanala after the fact.

I'd like to point out , since the point has been raised, ( yet again ) that there is a difference between responding to a CTA and ritual suicide. As far as I-RED is concerned our Networking Officer has put it eloquently into words and I'm not inclined to expand this discussion in public.
Your collective desire for harmony should not be disturbed any further.

All societies do that anyway.

And this is, perhaps, the central error of your culture, as well as of Sansha's Nation. The view of unity as a wholly good thing.

The nature of evolution, of reality, is of diversity. Of different approaches to a problem. The most successful approach succeeds, obliterating the less efficient and wasteful. This does not necessarily mean the destruction of a culture or nation, but it will entail the destruction of those who hold to them. Often those are, indeed, cultures and nations.

Out of this new form new diversities are created to solve new problems. New cultures and nations arrive, compete, and fall. Technological progress is made. Better cultural and systemic practices prevail. We evolve.

To embrace a single unity of purpose, or understanding, is to embrace stagnation and decay. Only in endless cooperation and conflict is perfection found. For far too long, humans have thought of an ideal end state, where they should have thought of a perfect state of being. The perfect organism competes as hard as it can to be the best, and if its approach is not the best, assimilates the most useful one. Only in this is life found, for only in endless adaptation and growth can life be maintained.

I tend to disagree. There is a difference between the rational exchange of ideas under polite circumstances, especially with proper perspective, and working against your own interests. There is nothing to be served here that could not be served by dialogue, or at the very least agreeing to disagree. The idea that any people should harm relations over argumentation does not seem as though it is going to make the state, nor either of your positions, any more tenable. Nor are either of you likely to learn anything from the experience. Instead, it will simply reinforce your respective positions unto each other, allowing you to avoid deciding on a certain path.

Our culture is not nearly so impenetrable as it may seem. Conflicting ideas are debated and examined from every angle until we have determined either that both can coexist harmoniously, or that the better idea is chosen. One would hardly say nothing has politically happened in our stagnated empire, especially considering the last few years.

Perhaps you have viewed this from the wrong angle. If you are looking to learn and expand as a culture, surely the way to do that would not involve simply separating into smaller groups because you can't possibly work out a decent exchange of ideas. In that way, in division and warfare, lies at best the stagnation you decry and at worst the possibility that those with the wrong ideas will prevail due to sheer luck or mitigating circumstances. In division lays the option to avoid the more difficult process of deliberation, teaching, and learning.

In short, perhaps you think we are simply a megalith that hasn't changed in a few thousand years, but we have precisely the same, if not more, differences of opinion than you do. We simply have a code of civics to handle that sort of thing in polite society without severely weakening our internal harmony. Perhaps this is why I view the unfolding process with such trepidation. Surely, there is a process or system in place that keeps militant factions within the Caldari State from turning their noses up at each other over such relatively small causes.

Conflict and competition is what it truly means to be Caldari. The pursuit of perfection demands nothing less. The desire to be the best, the strongest, to prevail over our weakness through continued struggle are virtues to be admired. Anything less should be regarded with the greatest of contempt and derision.

It's my job to protect the Achur monasteries. Does that mean I have to understand what the monks understand when they achieve the enlightenment of meditation? It's my job to protect the cargo handler, does it mean I have to understand his feeling of peace when he sits down for dinner with the family he's successfully provided for, not five jumps from things that would kill him for amusement if we didn't hold the line?

I'm not sure what I'd be without my loyalty to the State and my fierce pride in my kirjuun - people who've come to mean more to me than my sibkin. Perhaps I'm not a very good diplomat. Perhaps I'm not a very good person. Maybe I'm not even a very good citizen anymore.

Pieter, do you think I'd be trying to explain this to you if I thought you were a poor diplomat, bad person, or a bad citizen? The fact is, you don't have to do any of those things. Honestly, I think you do anyway. If you were just another soldier, I'd have written off the entire scenario as more of the sort of corporate politicking that I was somewhat tired of in grade school. I think you're capable of being a cut above that sort of thing.

You probably don't get much practice, so your skills seem atrophied, but you do seem to have them. Unlike most people involved in the military pursuits I've expressed less than positive views on, I have much more respect for you as a person. You would have made a fine citizen, soldier, and person no matter what empire you'd been born into.

With all of that said, I can't agree with some of the Caldari State's most important actors being shaken apart from within by what amounts to an argument that has simply grown out of control. It takes no strength nor effort to simply flow over the rapids with the current. It takes strength to swim against it to firm ground, where you can stand unaffected.

Ah, for the day that the water all reaches the sea and we forget about these antics.

I do question whether competition really does generate better results than discussing good ways forward and, perhaps, trying both ways to see which has more positive results. It would seem that resources wasted competing are resources wasted competing.

A good analysis of the situation actually came from a Caldari gentleman I've been having a back-and-forth discussion with. Advertising costs companies giant streams of revenue, revenue which would have been pure profit. Now, some companies that advertise literally have no reason to advertise save for competition, because their names are well known enough but they have significant, equally viable alternatives to contend with. Now, if those companies decided to not advertise, all as one, they would save an incredible amount of money, money they might be able to put back into their product itself. They would all be better off if that were the case, especially if they collaborated into a larger company and only contended with the customers' willingness to buy.

However, if just one company advertises, that company gains an unfair advantage. That means all companies will waste money on pointless advertisements, most of which will simply be blinking boxes in our peripheral vision that we won't bother with, simply because they can't allow anyone an advantage.

So it seems to be with capsuleer corporations (hardly a phenomenon exclusive to any race). Everyone would be better off if we decided to set aside our more petty disagreements and focus on the multitude of external threats. In their bungling, ineffective way, CONCORD was at least trying to do just that, and their failure seems to be based on capsuleer corporations' inherent ability to step on each others' toes without excellent, unifying leadership. I don't think the corporations are better off competing with each other when pirate organizations can still exist outside their space with impunity and strike nearly at whim. The only reason we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot seems to be that we can't all suddenly, as civilized people, stop sneering at each other long enough to realize we have groups literally farming us for our blood and stealing our children.

I suppose my contention is that we aren't short on external threats to unify against, and those external threats certainly require quite a bit more unity to erase from existence. Surely, they would be able to confront groups like the Guristas on a more coordinated and effective level if they could act as one State rather than roosters in a pit.

I thought the prevailing way great empires were defeated was through "divide and conquer?"