A moral question: Does New America have it right?

[kalos72]

So I was reading Airlords of the Ozarks again and it just hit me...

NA might just have the right idea in a T2k setting. Take away the racial/cultural bigotry and the idea will rebuild a safe sound society.

Some people, unskilled, wont survive and I shouldn't spend my time and resources trying to fee you and keep you warm. Either you provide some useful skill or attribute or there are a half a million more right behind you.

Not sure I can go so far as to agree with the LC camps but if you have nothing to give the society in return then why keep you around?

The Allegheny module says there are roughly 3 million people camping out around Pittsburgh. How on earth would you expect ANY agency or government to support that size population again? Most of them need to just die off...

I dont know, maybe NA's concept would be the best way to refine and reconstruct the US back to glory days. I know neither MILGOV or CIVGOV are worth a pot to piss in...

[kato13]

For morale purposes I think once people are inside your borders you have to do what you can to save all but the weakest. Otherwise you might tear apart families and friends. If your only doctor's son loses both legs to infection are you going to just let him die. If you don't and start to establish a multiple tier system depending on one's place in society that will just foment additional dissent.

As far as letting refugees in, communities are certainly going to be restrictive and let in those they consider most useful.

[headquarters]

NA takes a view that theweak should be culled - people like Stephen Hawking ,Albert Einstein and anyone else that cant contribute to the standards that NA set will have to go .

Not to mention the racial bigotry - its eeirely similar to the 1930s-40s politics.

Save those who can be saved is all very well , but I have an opinion that the NA would rather cull anyone that doesnt fit the profile regardless of actual capacity ofthat person . ( I.e dissent is not allowed ).

We have our own take on the NA in our campaign called the NDP - no racial bigotry but certainly an exclusive system towards those who take a different view to their utilatarian authoritharian ways .

But kalos makes an interesting argument - how do you say in English - arbitrage ? Prioritizing the wounded at teh scene of an accident into green , yellow and red tags -red tags : try to minimize suffering but do not waste resources to save ,those resources can be spent actually saving someone with a better chance of making it .

To challenge the humanity of the party is always interesting .Should the value of human life be sacrificed for survival ?

Should the players meddle in the overlord NPCs scheme of dividing the few rations left that leaves some to starve and thus ensures survival of the few -splitting the rations would mean that everyone runs the risks that come with starvation .( Deseases etc ) .

What is better? Sacrificing some to save someone else or standing together to try and keep up our humanist values ?

In recent years ( as I have matured..sort of ..) I have begun to think - who would be the "evil and stupid marauders " ? I dont think they would be guaffing ruffians in latex and spikes collars on motorbikes that rape and kill without remorse in T2K . ( Although there will always be people with questionable fashion sense and bad morals ) .

I see them more as desperate people of all ages and both sexes that are driven to aggression by hunger and fear .

Killing regular folk like that might not be a fun evening for your players though..

SO in some ways I guess morals will have to bow to good oldfashion clean justified kills in game :D

[Abbott Shaull]

Yes in lot of the areas the marauders bands would be the type of folks that the NA wouldn't to continue to support because they don't have skills that x community needs. The sad thing is neither does any other community a-z either.

Of course in other areas they would be old gangs who no longer could feed off the population or no population or former police force or as in Eastern Europe former military units that are no longer have military discipline.

As stated before bandits/marauders/pirates would be in the prospective of the people who are being attack most of the time. Sometimes these people are just fighting for their survival of their families. Sometimes they are fighting for their home. There are several factors why an area becomes a lawless place, and the local state government can't control it. Sometimes it as simple as bad blood between tribes/clans. Other it gets much more complex.

As the NA getting it right. They would only cause more people to want to dispose their government with the tier system. All one has to do in the US look at the Companies who have used the cry they could afford benefits and forced a tier system on their unions while they pay their CEOs and other millions in salary. There is lot of resentment of those in the lower tier toward those in the upper tier who threw them under the bus, so they could keep their pay and benefits.......

Yet, that is small been compared to racism that NA established. Once the population the racism is just means to establish a tier society, then they would fight against the tier system rather than try to fight the racism that is thrown in on top of it.....

Just some thoughts.

[kalos72]

Some good points so far...

Again, assuming you disregard the racial and cultural bigotry, I think in a world where most people cant find enough food to eat. Where marauders roam the country side killing other people to take their stuff or even just for fun. Where the civilian population masses in packs of a few thousand and the "government" is lucky to field a few hundred in some places.

How is a government supposed to handle that? Even if CIVGOV/MILGOV didnt have their heads straight up their own butts most of the time, how could they possibly control that sort of population now? How do they feed them, protect them, support them?

Lets take an area like Pittsburgh from "Allegheny Uprising", with a reported population of roaming refugees numbering something like 3 million, assuming you buy that number which I have a problem with honestly. How would ANY military unit move in, setup camp, start food production or housing and such? We all know the 'mob' would over run the camp as soon as the first shipment of food arrived and that would be that.

At some point in a soceity like T2k, you have to ask yourself where does self preservation come into play.Most towns/city populations arent going to care how hungry the roaming refugees are. Most arent going to care that you have travelled from NYC all the way to Pittsburgh on foot. Unless you have something they need, as skill more so as anything material will just be taken after they beat you to death.

When do you put personal freedoms and rights aside for the betterment of the people as a whole?

NA puts garrisons in every town they take over, they remove local discontents to prevent them from causing trouble and then they let them go about their every day lives, taking a tithe of food and production for support. Would a MILGOV cantonment be that much different?

[lombardoslegion]

There is no doubt that Milgov and Civgov have their problems. But NA is not NA without the racial bigotry. That is what makes them "the bad guys." I am sure in most military cantonments there is a lot of Constitutional rights that are not being enforced to protect the survival of the community. But NA seems to take this to the next level. Their communities survive on fear, but all the modules show some group or another in opposition to NA.

When it comes down to survival, the sheep are going to find a sheep dog or get eaten by the wolf.

[Raellus]

That's like saying Naziism was a good thing, leaving aside the whole Final Solution or Lebensraum thing.

You can't separate the whole NA/ethnic cleansing thing. They go hand in glove.

[kato13]

That's like saying Naziism was a good thing, leaving aside the whole Final Solution or Lebensraum thing.

You can't separate the whole NA/ethnic cleansing thing. They go hand in glove.

Kalos' question has kind of been asked before in the Star Trek episode "Patterns_of_Force_(TOS_episode)" there you had a Federation Observer who wanted only the "good" parts of National socialism (as he honestly believed that it is the most efficient system of government ever devised), but it ended up getting away from him and embracing all of the darkest elements.

[kalos72]

I think perhaps we are looking at this from a perspective based on today's society and culture.

When you think about your position as the MILGOV commander with his division of 2000 men being tasked to control, support and supply the local population of 3 million refugees, how do you respond?

Sure we would all like to say, we do whatever we need to do and find a way to get it done. But reality sets in and we realize that those people that cant be utilized in SOME way to contribute to the group, are just dead weight. Weight your troops will be sacrificed at some point to defend.

As it stands in current "canon" news, realistically neither government controls more then what a 1/10th of the country or its population. Mega city's or city states with the most talented people will form and kick the old,sick,useless out at some point.

Would it be quicker to just do it from the start or wait until we waste resources trying just to figure out its a lost cause?

[WallShadow]

Carl Hughes built his organization with people specifically chosen for their predatory, bigoted, arrogant, self-serving characteristics. New America is bigoted racially, socially, and religiously from the bones out. Its use of the black battalion in Urban Guerrilla as cannon fodder mirrors the "efficient" processing of untermensch undesirables into such useful products as soap and lampshades.

Answer: No, using NA governing concepts degrades the chance of reestablishing a democratic society once the crisis is past. You are left with an elitist revolving-door good-ol'-boy form of government.

Ummm...maybe Carl Hughes has already succeeded....

[kalos72]

Ok lets make SURE not to bring this into the REAL WORLD! I am speaking bout GAME ONLY! :)

Carl Hughes is a genius. A racist, bigoted genius but a genius still the same. From the perspective of planning and execution, the storyline for NA shows a well thought out, reasoned plan with room for change as needed. NA areas will thrive if left alone and culture in those areas WILL change.

Again, I am talking from a "rebuilding the country" perspective I think NA has the right idea, although the wrong style for going about it can be argued. :)

[simonmark6]

I would see this type of "triage" being very difficult to actually undertake if you weren't a heartless bigot. Even if the commander were, getting the troops to act on the orders would be incredibly hard. I find it difficult to see a group of troops being happy with an order such as "round up everyone over sixty five that doesn't have a useful skill, all the disabled and sick and throw them out to starve".

Even if the troops do that, trying to do it to a population of 3 million is likely to have them tearing you apart in short order. If only one in a hundred decide to resist you have tens of thousands of rioters.

That doesn't even go into the debate about what shape a regimen that is willing to do this will eventually coallesce into. Any government based on these foundations is likely to be totalitarian in the extreme and I don't see them transitioning into anything less totalitarian once the initial crisis was over.

[kato13]

I would see this type of "triage" being very difficult to actually undertake if you weren't a heartless bigot. Even if the commander were, getting the troops to act on the orders would be incredibly hard. I find it difficult to see a group of troops being happy with an order such as "round up everyone over sixty five that doesn't have a useful skill, all the disabled and sick and throw them out to starve".

I fully agree with this. NA "works" because the leadership is of a like mind on this and they are able to twist prejudices to suit their goals.

There is nothing wrong with trying to look outside the box and see if some elements of even the most tyrannical regimes could be co-opted for the greater good, but expecting people to act heartless in their treatment of their fellow man without it corrupting their humanity, does not seem realistic to me.

Archeological records indicate human cultures may have taken care of the sick and the infirm as early as 530,000 years ago. Therefore I believe this is a very basic human drive and not one that can be easily dismissed even if it might be the most logical course of action.

[Raellus]

Kalos, you seem to be arguing along the lines of the ends justifying the means.

I think NA's plans would not lead to recovery because, even if they were successful initially, there would be continued conflict. How NA's "recovery" plans could not proceed without ethnic cleansing is beyond me. The U.S. is simply too mutli-ethnic. Small segregated enclaves could probably exist but a unifying national government? No way, Jose. The best NA could hope for is control of a large region. Like I said, you can't separate NA's other policies from its bigotry. That's like diet coke, light cigarrettes, or fat free cookies.

I'm sure that some MilGov and CivGov commanders might attempt to coexist with nearby NA pockets (strong ones at least). But that would only be a stopgap. As soon as strong military forces could be organized, getting rid of NA would become a priority. Recognizing NA legitimizes it. Wait too long and there are going to be three (or more) self-declared national government.

I think smaller and weaker NA enclaves would be destroyed as quickly as possible to keep the sickness of its ideology from spreading.

So what if it NA does some good things? In 1930's Germany, National Socialism fostered economic recovery, national pride and recognition as a regional (if not world) economic and military power. It also led to the most destructive war in human history and the murder of millions of innocents.

NA can boast of some successes and improvements but that pales in comparison to its policies regarding ethnicity. Even "mild" bigotry will eventually lead to neo-apartheid or pogroms and other crimes against humanity.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

While I don't wish to say exactly what others here have already said, some points do bear repeating: -

The only reason NA actually exists is to create Carl Hughes' perfect society - if you don't fit the profile, you are simply a commodity to be used up (i.e. that means if you aren't white, Anglo-Saxon, you will be killed one way or another). That all by itself makes him and NA evil by the standards of society, even a broken society like the Twilight world.

It is a good point to make that we are judging NA by our own standards of today but I think even in the shattered, ruined world of Twilight where Strength = Right, people will still recognize that NA serves the good of itself and not the good of the people.

Having said that, I do understand the point that Kalos is making, however I very much agree with Raellus, I for one do not believe that the end justifies the means. I fully agree that many people would go to NA as a means of survival because they have nothing else - when you're starving you're likely to push aside your convictions & morals for a morsel of food - but as a society I think most people in Twilight USA would not wish to join NA because it is so rabidly bigoted no matter how good they may be at rebuilding.

Speaking as a white, Anglo-Saxon, I would not want to join any group that has an elitist, bigoted megalomaniac as it's leader but in the Twilight world, many people will feel they don't have a choice. The actions that Hughes and his crew are following are not so foreign to us really, they are exactly the sort of choices ancient tribes used to make if a baby was born with deformities or a person was too physically ill to contribute to the tribe anymore. They would leave them to die.
However, we are supposed to have grown, emotionally, spiritually and intellectually as well as technologically. Hughes plan would certainly work but it's execution means you'd lose your humanity. Unfortunately in the Twilight world, few people can afford (or even want) the self-sacrifice required to retain their humanity.

This is exactly why I like the Twilight game and why I so strongly disagree with Mr Allen Varney who claims that Twilight is a moral vacuum (see http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=1945 and read the comments at the blog site Adm.Lee mentions). NA brings about an entire shade of gray into the morality issues faced by the players. Yes NA could do some good but the way they do it is intrinsically evil - there is no clear cut black & white morality here, it's all gray and what the PCs do can actually make a real difference to the that part of the world.

[kalos72]

This is a solid discussion. Thank you to all those involved for keeping it civil. :)

I see your point Raellus and Cynic regarding NA's eventual outcome. But what about the scenario I described earlier?

How does ANY government expect to deal with a local population of 3 million refugees while keeping to the principles and ideals we discuss here?

Now the gray area...

I suggest that the government would "delay" moving on a situation like that and claim "we dont have the manpower" hoping all along that half die off in the coming year while recruiting every ounce of skill they can from them before hand.

How would WE claim the moral high ground knowing that we left 1.5 million people to die rather then die trying ourselves? Difficult question me thinks... :)

[Cdnwolf]

Great discussion and I love the fact it is very civilized.

You have to ask yourself why all those people started to gather together again...but for one reason... to hopefully restart society.


How long would the Carl Hughes of the world survive before they become so corrupted that they get taken out. How many countries or even corporations started to crumple because of poor planning once the main driving force is gone.

[Raellus]

Kalos, I see your point. A cynical and short-sighted government may well let the "weak" die off, saving themselves the trouble of having to take care of them (or at least try to). But, the harm in this is that such a government would quickly lose much of its legitimacy in the eyes of the survivors. If the government can't- or even worse, won't- care for a good number of its own citizens, what good would it be? A lot of neglected citizens- and maybe some of the "chosen ones" as well- would be all too willing to turn their backs on the government that had, in effect, turned it's back on them.

A government with its eyes on the future would hopefully realize that if the U.S.A. is going to someday return to its position of prominence in the world, let alone defend itself from foreign powers, it will need to preserve as much of its population as possible. From just a PR standpoint, the government would need to be seen as doing everything in its power to assist its citizens. A failure to do so would be a massive blow to national morale, and would undoubtedly slow economic and military recovery.

Look at how the U.S. federal government came across after Hurricane Katrina- incompetent and uncaring. This likely contributed somewhat to Obama's victory in the next presidential election.

Look at how Hoover is remembered for his somewhat cavalier, "it will take care of itself" response to the 1929 Stock Market Crash and the beginning of the Great Depression. FDR is much more fondly remembered because he actually did something about it. Look at how the Weimar Republic was viewed by most Germans in the '20s and early '30s. In fact, one could argue that inneffective government led, in part, to the assention of the Nazi party.

A callous attitude on the part of the T2K U.S. federal government after the TDM could actually lead to an increase in support for more radical and proactive options like New America.

So yes, Kalos, I agree that from a purely practical, short-term POV, an OTSS national policy would make things easier on the Feds, but, in the long-term, it would mean the end of that government, and likely the downfall of the nation. I would hope that the government would see beyond the short-term difficulties of dealing with hordes of desperate refugees. This of course, is my opinion.

[chico20854]

Take another read through the description and history of the 43rd MP Bde in Last Submarine. It does a pretty good job of discussing the issues of how to deal with refugees and the implications of the choices a government (which the 43rd essentially was) makes.

[sglancy12]

NA areas will thrive if left alone and culture in those areas WILL change.

Again, I am talking from a "rebuilding the country" perspective I think NA has the right idea, although the wrong style for going about it can be argued. :)

You seem to be arguing that New America's "triage" system for dealing with human "deadwood" is appropriate for dealing with the current crisis because the goal of saving everyone leads to a complete disintegration of the means to save everyone and then everyone is lost to anarchy, famine and disease.

Well, as far as I can tell, per canon v1 and v2 (I know nothing about TW2013), some of that has already happened. US military units across the United States have been whittled down to mere shadows of their former selves, and most of this has not been because of combat against foreign invaders or domestic separatists. It's been fighting with a their own desperate starving population who are willing to do anything to make sure they and their children starve tomorrow, rather than starve today.

Some units have given up trying to perform the impossible duties of which you speak. Per canon that includes the 43rd Military Police Brigade in New England that pulled out of a huge urban area that it couldn't police and regrouped into a cantonment that it could actually protect. The people left behind called that "abandonment" and "betrayal." I always just saw it as trying to save what they could from a untenable situation.

There is also the CivGov 228th Infantry Brigade that is moving from the Mid-Atlantic area to the Great Lakes. Thousands of people under their care are going to die, unless they can make the migration with them. But if they stay, the unit will remain isolated from CivGov and eventually the population will exhaust the food in that area. So the migration is a form of triage in that the most infirm will be not make it.

The canon mentions that the 197th Mechanized Inf Bge in cantonment in Cairo IL is considering shutting off refined fuel shipments to MilGov because they need to keep it to ensure the survival of their cantonment.

There is also some mention that MilGov and CivGov are only attempting to control areas of the country with critical infrastructure, or places they can consolidate their forces. That process is ongoing during the time the players are in the game and hasn't been completed yet.

In the TW2K universe, people are thinking of that kind of triage.

But New America isn't just a ruthless force that intends to perform triage on a national level in order to rebuild the United States. In fact, they don't want to save the United States. They want to create a new political and social entity to replace the United States. In order to do that, they are using the current catastrophe to enact their social agenda under the guise of rebuilding the nation.

That's what New America is.

Kalos, you seem to be arguing along the lines of the ends justifying the means.

That's what I smell here too, but the thing about New America is that they are about ends, not means. Providing food, shelter, medicine and security to a population are not ends. They are means. The end is turning the wreckage of the United States into some kind of racist, neo-Objectivist, dictatorship where a self-selecting elite hold all political power and religion is permitted only where it reinforces state policy.

So, even we remove the racism and you still get a political system that I, personally, would have to throw a bomb at.

Such a system could not get a toe-hold in the United States but for one thing: the lights are out, the cops are gone, the doctor is dead, and the grocery store shelves are empty. Under those conditions people are willing to trade liberty for security.

But what about the scenario I described earlier?

How does ANY government expect to deal with a local population of 3 million refugees while keeping to the principles and ideals we discuss here?

The answer is: they don't.

You'll note that in ver 1 and ver 2 canon there are no MilGov or CivGov units around Pittsburgh, the place you mentioned where all those refugees are. Both governments have given up on that area. Which is why, in that political vacuum Colonel White and his marauder army have risen up. With 3 million refugees to recruit from, he has the manpower to organize ruthlessly and take what he wants. But such a group is like a shark, they are redistributing resources, not creating new ones, so if they ever stop moving forward, they will start starving. Most political systems are only a few missed meals away from a revolution.

I suggest that the government would "delay" moving on a situation like that and claim "we dont have the manpower" hoping all along that half die off in the coming year while recruiting every ounce of skill they can from them before hand.

How would WE claim the moral high ground knowing that we left 1.5 million people to die rather then die trying ourselves?

This is a different argument than the one you began with. Your first question was whether New America's means could be justified in the TW2K world. You wanted to ask that question while divorcing New America from it's racist agenda. Okay fine. There is always a valid argument to be made that ruthless action to ensure the group's survival in the face of an individual's death is justified. It's "Lifeboat Politics."

But now you seem to be getting to the kind of moral relativism that pacifists use to justify their stance that violence in the service of politics is never justified.

To quote Col. Henry Blake: "Horseapples!"

"Bomber" Harris is not some villainous war criminal like Herman Goering just because both men ran organizations that dropped bombs on civilians from airplanes. Herman is a war criminal because he bombed civilians to create a world where democracy is eliminated and all racial, mental, physical, and political "inferiors" are put to death. Bomber Harris killed civilians to prevent that world from becoming a reality.

If you take the political agenda out of the equation then both men are war criminals. But if you do take the politics out of the equation you are engaging in sophistry. You are engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

MilGov and CivGov are performing exactly the kind of triage you suggest. Areas deemed to be too difficult to defend or not worth the expense of resources, are being abandoned after all strategic resources are removed. Look at the scenarios "The Last Submarine" or "Armies of the Night" or "Rifle River" or "The Lima Incident." They are all about military units going into uncontrolled areas to remove strategic assets, but not necessarily improving the lot of the people in the area.

Leaving unsupportable populations to sink or swim on their own is the absolute worst decision someone could make, unless you stop to examine every other decision available. It is the least evil option. It is Lifeboat Politics.

But New America isn't just interested in overcoming this period of social, political and economic catastrophe. They are using it to establish a new political order. If anything New America needs to extend the period of anarchy in order to keep people desperate enough to flock to New America's relative security.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing