WA Delegate: None.
Last WA Update:
The Iron Confederacy contains 2 nations.
Today's World Census Report
The Most Influential in The Iron Confederacy
World Census experts spent many evenings loitering in the corridors of power in order to determine which nations were the greatest international diplomacy heavyweights.
As a region, The Iron Confederacy is ranked 6,007th in the world for Most Influential.
|1.||The People's Republic of Zulankan Outpost 47||Liberal Democratic Socialists||“ˇHasta la Victoria Siempre!”|
|2.||The Colony of TICON33||Civil Rights Lovefest||“The MT Army will save NationStates from hate”|
- : The Constitutional Monarchy of Nelson Wilbury of the region Traveling Wilburys proposed constructing embassies.
- : Alexander foreign office of the region Right Wing Coalition proposed constructing embassies.
- : The Principality of Best British Girl Founder of the region The Banana Box cancelled the closure of its embassy in The Iron Confederacy.
- : The Federation of Hoops and Yoyo of the region The Banana Box ordered the closure of its embassy in The Iron Confederacy.
- : Embassy cancelled between Peoples Revolutionary Armed Forces and The Iron Confederacy.
- : The illustrious bashing madeline ceased to exist.
- : The Colony of TICON33 arrived from The South Pacific.
- : Embassy established between The Iron Confederacy and The Red Fleet.
- : The People's Republic of Zulankan Outpost 47 agreed to construct embassies with The Red Fleet.
- : Dedede empire of the region Dream Land proposed constructing embassies.
The Iron Confederacy Regional Message Board
Following the successful raids on The Iron Confederacy by Antifa along with widespread international support across various regions, Prime Minister Alfonzo Finley has made an official statement towards the recent attacks on these regions.
With the authority from the War Cabinet of The Republic of Youssath and the joint authority of The Foreign Ministry and The Internal Ministry:
Members of the National Front Council, revolutionaries of The Azure Revolution,
Friends and fellow Youssathians at home and abroad,
Good evening. It is of a serious matter that we have gathered here today in the recent wake of attacks and development against the region of The Iron Confederacy.
Yesterday, August 19, 2019, The Iron Confederacy was attacked by the raiding forces from the region of Antifa. The attacks on The Iron Confederacy were instigated under the pretence of removing "anti-fascist"
movements, although it must be noted that at this point of time, that The Iron Confederacy has continuously maintained a raiding force of their own to export their hateful ideology abroad to unite the world under
fascism and that its founder, Hispanyo, is in blantant violation of several international rules and treaties imposed by the very international community.
While we do condemn The Iron Confederacy for exporting their hateful ideology abroad along with the ideology of Borenzoism, this government calls upon the international community to settle their differences
through arbitation and diplomacy, and that while ideologies and borders do separate us and our people, we must embrace diversity of our beliefs in a world which we all share. We must condemn those who take
up arms against peaceful regions, for it only sows discord and war in years to come. The justifications made by Antifa that warrants an invasion of The Iron Confederacy are just as equally damaging as what
The Iron Confederacy has did before, as ideas and beliefs do not die as easily as nations, and may give birth to a greater insurgency threat for generations to come.
While Youssath does not condone Borenzoism or any of its kind to be the modern ideology of our times, we interpret the messages of The Iron Confederacy as nothing more than simply "ultranationalistic
sentiments" resonated by its members. These nations are free to exercise whatever ideology their populace wish to do, and we must not disturb this delicate balance for as it creates radical refugees fleeing
towards our borders, undermining our very own national security and warranting a more dangerous world to live in. It is therefore of utmost importance to leave these nations at peace, for invading them gives them
a moral justification to resist against those trying to help them.
Youssath was founded upon nationalistic sentiments and groups who all believed in a greater cause than themselves against those who threaten to sell away our independence towards imperialist powers of the
world. When we took up arms and defeated the democratic forces in Youssath, we did not purge or execute their members just for being the "enemy" here. They are still Youssathians after all, and we cannot harm
those who fought and bled for a greater cause than themselves. Instead, we re-educated them, provided housing and basic commodities and reintegrated them back into our society. Some of them chose to flee
the country at the end, but what we have only done is to provide opportunities for them to restart their life and continue as normal. Violence only begets more violence if we are left to our own primitive senses.
The invasion of The Iron Confederacy by Antifa is widely condemned upon by this very government, for the repercussions set upon by this invasion will haunt future generations in NationStates. The creation of
Nuevo Amanecer is proof that ideologies do not die so easily, and the actions by Antifa will inspire more radical fascist attacks against neutral regions in the world, undermining international stability. Antifa
therefore does not have to right to justify wars as so they please, and that this government is greatly disturbed that Antifa have resorted to the path of violence and provocation - which will reciprocate in years
to come. Youssath encourages all members to set up meaningful diplomatic channels to settle their differences, and if that fails, to call upon the Security Council to officially condemn the region.
Youssath also expresses concern over The North Pacific Army's involvement in the The Iron Confederacy raids. As one of the largest and respected regions in NationStates, we feel that The North Pacific should
not meddle in the affairs of other regions, since it only serves to inspire our enemies against us to plot for a coup d'état just like what the Crimson Order has done years ago. While Youssath hopes to
contribute significantly in The North Pacific through the World Assembly and potential participation into the NPA, we cannot help but feel disturbed over the blantant lack of respect towards the region's foreign
policy in the international stage. Therefore, we will take more time to consider participating fully into The North Pacific's operations, which will be known at a later date.
We hope that through this conflict, there will be no need for further bloodshed and conflict between opposing ideological regions in NationStates. This war has gone far enough for many of us, and if we continue to
resort to invasion and raiding to resolve our differences, we will only leave behind a world full of destruction and hate. In this year, take a pause and reflect what this means for the rest of the world.
We call for all parties to set aside their differences and to strive for the peaceful resolution of this conflict. Hopefully, there is no need for another war.
I wish everyone a pleasant and enjoyable evening. Thank you.
Unfortunately no. If you could move out so we don’t have to eventually kick you that’d be appreciated. :)
As the leader of The Free Republican Commonwealth I say that, my friends, do not leave and surrender. Waste their time
From Augustin Cochin to Joseph de Maistre, from Edmund Burke to Karl Marx, from Hannah Arendt to Michel Villey, the majority of the critiques of the ideology of human rights have denounced its universalism and abstract egalitarianism. They have equally called attention to the fact that, in depriving all concrete characteristics from man, whose rights they proclaim, of this ideology, they have risked ending in leveling and uniformization. If one admits that the affirmation of human rights essentially aims at guaranteeing the autonomy of individuals, one understands at the same time that there is a contradiction there.
The abstraction of human rights is what threatens most to render them inoperative. The principal reason for this is that it is contradictory to affirm, at the same time, the absolute value of the individual and the equality of individuals in the sense of a fundamental identity. If all men are equal, if they are all fundamentally the same, if they are all 'men like others,' far from the unique personality of each of them being able to be recognized, they will appear, not as irreplaceable, but on the contrary as interchangeable. Not being different from one another by their particular qualities, only their more or less great number will make a difference. Abstract equivalence, in other words, necessarily contradicts the proclamation of the absolute individuality of the subjects: no man can be at the same time 'unique' and basically identical to every other. Inversely, one cannot affirm the unique value of an individual even while considering his personal characteristics as indifferent, that is to say, without specifying what makes him different from the others. A world where all are equal is not a world where 'nothing is worth a life,' but where a life is worth nothing.
This problem had been glimpsed by Alexis de Tocqueville, who related the rise in the value of equality to the risk of uniformization at the core of social life. It has been repeated more recently by Hannah Arendt, who shows that to posit man as a pure abstraction is to increase his vulnerability. 'The concept of human rights, based upon the assumed existence of a human being as such, broke down at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it were for the first time confronted with people who had indeed lost all other qualities and specific relationships - except that they were still human.'
Summarizing the thesis of Hannah Arendt, André Clair underlines the 'relation between the affirmation of abstract universal rights and the failure of human rights in ensuring the most elementary respect for human beings as persons. Precisely what the doctrine of human rights fails to recognize, with its thesis of abstract equality, is that there are no effective rights without a recognition of the differences between beings. That is the point of the thesis: human rights can only be rights of individuality... Of course, there follows a relativity of rights linked to their efficiency, that of a historical community. But much more than that, it is a question of a metaphysical thesis, that of ontological difference: the law does not have its principle in man, not even in a fundamental universal subjectivity, but it is an element of the world; it is the ontological difference, unrecognized by the affirmation of abstract equality, that alone gives its full significance to human rights, in recognizing first a superiority in a world already constituted of meanings... It is not at all a question of an absolute right of everybody to difference, but of recognizing that only rights rooted in traditions and community experiences have efficacy.'
It is only too easy to recall here that the same that has affirmed the rights of individuals most strongly is also that which, in fact, has put in place the most weighty mechanisms of collective heteronomy. The two phenomena, one knows today, had to go together, even if that were only because the state alone, having rapidly become a welfare state, was able to attenuate the destructive effects of the rise in individualism on the social fabric. Now, the intervention of the state in all fields contradicts the autonomy of wills that is considered to be the basis of the responsibility of the subjects of the law.
'The emancipation of individuals from the primordial restraint which committed them to a community which it is claimed preceded them as regards its ordering principle, and which profited from very effective hierarchical links between man and man,' observes Marcel Gauchet, 'far from entailing a reduction of the role of authority, as common sense would suggest through simple deduction, has constantly contributed to enlarge it. The undeniable latitude acquired by individual agents at all levels has not at all prevented, but on the contrary, has regularly favored the constitution, above and beyond the sphere of civil autonomy, of an administrative apparatus taking over more and more broadly and minutely the collective direction... The deeper the laws of men enter into the definition of their society, the more the organizational dominance of the bureaucratic state, under cover of permitting their participation in it, robs them, in fact, of this faculty.' What remains then, today, of the 'reign of human rights?' In contemporary life, the question of foundations is, for all intents and purposes, no longer posed. Our contemporaries no longer base these rights on human nature, since the time they have known that no 'state of nature' ever preceded life in society, and especially since the time they learned that 'nature,' insofar as it has something to tell us, goes in a very different direction from that of the ideology of rights. But, for all that, they have not become Kantian. They seek rather to conserve the notion of 'dignity' even while detaching it from all notion of a moral law. 'To respect the dignity of another human being,' observes Pierre Manent, 'is no longer to respect the respect which he conserves in himself for the moral law; it is today, more and more, to respect the choice that he has made, whatever this choice may be, in the realization of his rights.'
The present tendency, more precisely, consists in converting all sorts of demands, desires or interests into 'rights.' Individuals, in the extreme case, would have the 'right' to see no matter what demand satisfied, for the sole reason that they can formulate them. Today, to claim rights is only a way of seeking to maximize one's interest. The future of the consumer of rights thus converges with the economic ideal of man solely preoccupied with augmenting his utility. 'The Homo oeconomicus in search of his interest,' remarks Guy Roustang, 'has his homologue in the world of politics: the individual who is defined by his rights.' That is why the citizen has increasingly more difficult in finding his place in a society that is politically conceived on the model of a self-regulated market. Reduced to a simple catalogue of desires posed as so many needs, rights thus continually proliferate without any longer encumbering themselves with a true raison d'ętre. This inflation of rights correspons to what Michael J. Sandel has called the 'procedural republic,' and to the consecration of the idol of the 'dependent individualist' (Fred Siegel)...
In developing a 20th century outlook on politics, the first thing necessary was to dissociate politics from other direction of human energy, particularly from economics and morality. In view of the enormous vogue of theories which sought to explain political phenomena with ideational equipment derived from, and appropriate to, other fields of activity or thought, this was quite necessary. We have seen that politics is a type of activity sui generis, that its practice involves, often entirely unconsciously on the part of the actor, its own way of thinking in action. It remains to state definitively the separability and the inter-dependence of the various directions of human energy, and of Cultural energy.
A world without abstract thought - the world of the dog, for example - is a world wherein a complete continuity reigns. Each thing fits quite perfectly into its place or sphere. By comparison with the human world, it is non-problematical. Reality and appearance are one. The distinctively human soul sees the macrocosm however as symbolic; it differentiates between Appearance and Reality, the symbol and that which is symbolized. All constructive human thinking whatever contains this as its essence. But this separating of things into appearance and reality, this singling out of one thing from another and bestowing intense abstract thought on it, is itself a distortion of its quiet, non-problematic relation to other things. Thus to think is to exaggerate.
For Culture-man, the High Culture in which he is fated to be born, live and die, is the world of his spirit. The High Culture sets the spiritual boundaries of this world. The High Culture sets its impress on almost every form of thought and activity of the individuals and groups in its domain. Within this realm, the thought-forms and thoughts, action-forms and actions, all fit into their natural places and occupy their non-problematical relations to one another. These relations continue, even though thought is applied to a sphere to exaggerate its part in the destiny of the whole. To think is to exaggerate, but this exaggeration affects only thought and does not disturb the macrocosm. The same is true of any one man: the various directions of his energy stand in an organically unified, harmonious relationship to one another. There is no "economic man" - there is only this man directing his energy toward economics for the moment. Nor is there any "reasonable man," such as some Western legal systems predicate. There is only this man being reasonable for this occasion. The essential characteristic of the higher organisms, man, and High Culture, is the soul. Thus this particular man acts economically in quite a different fashion from another man, because his soul is different. This makes all of his thought and action peculiar to him. One man has strong interests and abilities in a certain direction, another man elsewhere. High Cultures are also differentiated from one another by unequal endowment in various directions. The principium individuationis applies also to the High Cultures.
Every organism, from the plants and animals to men and Cultures, has a multiplicity of functions, a diversity that increases in refinement and articulation as we proceed upward. This functional versatility does not however disturb the unity of the organism. It is the very unity of the organism that creates this necessity for expression in various directions. For one direction to be pursued at the expense of another is distortion and brings illness and death, if persisted in. I am concerned only with organisms in health here, and in these, the changing of direction of energy is governed by the inner rhythm of the organism. This rhythm is different in each organism, and is affected by individuality, age, sex, adaptation, and milieu. Each human being has his daily sequence of changes of direction of energy-flow. All organisms have their inner rhythm that governs which function is called into play at a given moment. A Culture has such a rhythm also, and at various stages of its development, this rhythm accents first one, then another, field of thought of activity. Similarly any man, and a Culture-man in particular, has his appropriate type of activity and of thought for each age of his development. It has been well said that a young man is an idealist, a mature man a realist, an old man a mystic. This rhythm in a Culture which gives primacy to a certain side of its life during a given period is the source of The Spirit of the Age.
It is only the accent, the beat, which is affected in this changing of direction. The various functions all continue, but one is primary. This describes both men and Cultures. Thus "economic man" continues to exist as a unit, even in his economic activity; his individuality continues, and his other spiritual sides still exist, even though for a given Age a certain side of life is uppermost. This is the meaning of "anachronism" in its historical use. Thus Fausto Sozzini is an anachronism in the 16th century, Carlyle in the 19th.
So much for the association of forms of thought and action. They are also dissociated.
The expression change of direction was used to denote the shifting of emphasis from one function to another. These changes of direction are forms of adaptation to different types of situations. It is the type of situation, of problem to be solved, that gives the uniqueness to a way of thinking or acting. Self-evidently one would not approach the problem of fixing a piece of machinery as a power-problem - that would end in the smashing of the enemy machinery. Nevertheless, many Rationalists and Liberals tried to treat power-problems as mechanical in nature.
The various fields of thought and endeavor thus separate out. Considered by themselves, they are quite autonomous. Each has different conscious assumptions, and a different unconscious attitude. Some of the most important must be listed, with their fundamental structures.
First, there is religion. From the view of spiritual content, this is the highest of all human forms of thought. Religion has the great, ever-present characteristic that it sees the totality of things under a sacred aspect. It is divine metaphysics, and regards every other human form of thought and action as subsidiary. Religion is not a method of social improvement, it is not a codification of knowledge, it is not ethics - it is the presentation of a sacred ultimate reality, and all of its phases flow from this.
Philosophy, however, is essentially a different direction of thought. Even a theistic philosophy has a different attitude from religions. In a theistic philosophy, the beginning of religion sets the boundary to the philosophic endeavor. The philosophy lies this side of religion and gives a purely natural explanation to its subject-matter.
Science is yet another direction of thought: it is directed only to finding interrelations between phenomena, and generalizing the results, but it does not attempt to give ultimate explanations.
Technics has nothing to do with science, for it is not a form of pure thinking at all, but thought directed to action. Technics has one aim: power over the macrocosm. It uses the results of science as its tools, scientific theoretical generalizations as levers, but it discards them when their efficacy ceases. Technics is not concerned with what is true, but with what works: if a materialistic theory yields no results, and a theological one does, technics adopts the latter. It was thus Destiny that Pragmatism should appear in America, the land of worship of technics. This "philosophy" teaches that what is true is what works. This is simply another way of saying that one is not interested in truth, and is thus the abdication of philosophy. This could be called the elevation of technics or the degradation of philosophy, but the total difference of direction between technics and philosophy is not thereby altered; it is merely that the age placed strong emphasis on technics, and little on philosophy. Nor can the alliance, in 20th century practice almost an identity, between practitioners of Science and Technics obliterate the difference of direction between these two fields. The same man can think at one time as a scientist, seeking information, and in the next moment as a technician, applying it to get power over Nature. Science and Technics are as different from Philosophy as they are from each other: neither one seeks to give explanations, these are for philosophy and religion. If someone thinks he is founding a "scientific philosophy," he is mistaken, and on the very first page he is bound to abandon the scientific attitude and assume the philosophic. One cannot face two directions at once. If precedence is given to Science over Philosophy, this is something else; this merely reflects The Spirit of the Age as being an externalized one. But important is that all these forms of thought and action are embedded in the flux and rhythm of the development of a High Culture; a given direction of thought has its vogue of supremacy just so long as the Culture-stage lasts which chose it for this role.
Economics is a form of action. Specifically, it is action designed to nourish and enrich private life. Any attempt to control other lives thus departs from Economics. When Cecil Rhodes thought primarily of making himself wealthy, he was thinking economically; when he proceeded to use his wealth for control over the populations of Africa, he was thinking politically. It is only rarely that a man of action is capable of mastery of both these different directions of endeavor, so different are their respective techniques. Economics again has two phases, production and trade, whose special techniques are again so different ordinarily one man does not master both.
The refinements of ways of thinking and action are numerous. For instance, the data of metaphysics do not matter to ethics, even though one uses a similar principle in both of them. Actually the data of ethics are its own. Mathematics also has its own attitude, related to but distinct from that of logic. Esthetics singles out one aspect of the totality of relationships, and this determines its basic assumptions.
God would be disgusted in you. Most of the Fascist nations aren't bad people, most of them are devoted to God. Unlike the Godless communists, Fascism promotes Order and control, Fascism is Not always Nazism.
As for the rest of the region,
The Fascist movement will come back stronger, faster, and swifter than ever. You cannot suppress truth.
Who do you think you are to instill your politics, raid a region and kick everyone out? You may raid a region, you may kick a few people out, but you can never destroy our spirit, and we will be back. Mark my words.
To the Iron Confederacy,
The Confederation sends its condolences. That you should fall like this - we have no words.
That said, you have fallen. It would seem your lands are unrecoverable.
As always, the Confederation will provide refugees of the Confederacy a safe space to call home.
If truth be told, the Confederacy seems to have been misguided in recent times. Whatever the cause of this, however, it does not excuse this blatant assault on sovereignty and free will. The Confederation encourages the appropriate authorities to plead their case before the World Assembly. One can only hope a liberation movement is championed there.
Hail the Confederation!
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators
Plus, real life exists. Namely the american militias ready to execute communists if need be.
You may have won the battle here but you will never win the war we will endure
You will never win against the might of the right