On Collaborationist Frontierism, A New Approach To Frontierism

Communitas is a region with a history of ideological pioneership. Our predecessors in Community were the original Frontierists, with our ex-leader Marim Grunzy writing the seminal text of Frontierist thought, “On True Frontiers” in August 2023. Today, we build upon that proud legacy by continuing to refine the thoughts of the Rainbow House Government, and to expand upon and continue developing Frontierist thought.

This essay has been in the works for a period of several months, and does not represent a knee-jerk reaction to the recent events surrounding Lonia Kreptia Llor (hereby referred to as LKL). This being said, the raid on LKL is representative of many of the concerns we have with Orthodox Frontierism, and is indicative of many of the reasons why we believe a shift in Frontierist thought is necessary. To speak briefly on the particulars of the raid, it is the opinion of the Rainbow House that LKL did and does not compose a wasteland. As Frontierists, we believe that we should have reached out to them with help, advice, and an offer of protection from raiders; not sought to destroy their nascent community. All frontiers were once small and vulnerable like LKL, and raiding small yet vibrant frontiers does nothing to improve NationStates. Indeed it fails to uphold the original goal of Frontierist ideology, to ensure everyone can be in a region they love. This essay was also largely written prior to the announcement of The Wellspring’s withdrawal from FOCUS, and recent speculation around the identity of Marim Grunzy, and so shall not comment on that. To be frank, it really does not matter who Marim Grunzy was; what matters is how we, as a sovereign and independent region, choose to interpret their doctrine.

Wastelands are a problem in NationStates. It is a shame that some new players will join NationStates to a government that does not work, and with no opportunities to participate in events or government. In the past, an ideology was formed in Frontiers which did not face these problems to ensure all people could be in a region which properly introduced them to NationStates, and thus, the principle of Frontierism was born. However, it has come to light that while Frontierism on paper should bring about positive change, it can sometimes fall short of its lofty ambitions, and can at times be used to masquerade an illegal raid by an unfriendly region or regions, upon a young community. In this paper, written by the High Ranking Officials of Communitas, we will delve into these issues and develop a new ideology - Collaborationist Frontierism.

Why not Orthodox Frontierism?

In our predecessor region, Community, a strong ideological stance was formed of Frontierism. What we consider to be at the core of Frontierist thought is a belief that we should nurture a NationStates environment where everyone is given the opportunity to be mentored and supported by their region into engaging with aspects of the game beyond the mere answering of issues. That everyone should get the opportunity to fall in love with the region in which they spawn. That is the spirit and root of Frontierism which we believe our new ideology shares with Orthodox Frontierism, and which keeps us a Frontierist ideology. Despite the noble core of Frontierist thought described above, Orthodox Frontierism can be used as a way to engage in selfish raiding actions whilst arguing that it is ‘for the greater good’. The label of Frontierism can obfuscate the foreign policy objectives motivating raids, with this then disrupting the ability of Frontierist regions to work collaboratively with the wider NationStates community. For example, defining a rival frontier as a Wasteland to justify destroying them; or killing small frontiers, because they take up spawns, despite those small regions having burgeoning young communities, and native populations who love their home.

Another reason why Frontierism does not work is the new player effect. Imagine a hypothetical new player. They have no idea how regions work other than that they started in one, and they start to make friends/allies within the region - because, despite the majority of a Wasteland being inactive, there may be some active players - then a large Frontier comes in and burns the region to the ground. Everyone? Ejected, moved to random regions. Their friends they were chatting with? Lost. It impacts them in such a way that a majority of players such as these may be discouraged from playing ever again. This, we are sure many will agree, is the complete antithesis of what the Frontierist project is attempting to achieve.

Cultivation of New Fields

While we recognize the issue of wastelands, we do not believe that dismantling them is the best approach. While there are acceptable reasons to raid (as discussed later in this document), dismantling of wastelands is not one of them, instead, we believe in helping wastelands form a government, and creating a stronger community for the wasteland. Instead of bombing and burning the uncultivated Frontiers, we should help to cultivate the frontiers that cannot grow by themselves. It is almost impossible for new frontiers to create a community, especially early on, and so attacking regions for not having a community inherently stifles and suppresses new frontiers from forming. The dismantling of new frontiers because they cannot build a stable government without any help or community to start, prevents the rise of new playstyles and new unique communities, and ultimately weakens the brilliant vibrant diversity which makes NationStates so engaging.

On Regional Sovereignty
Ultimately, everyone has a right to play this game in whatever way they want, provided they are not ruining anyone else’s fun in doing so. Each nation has a right to create and contribute to the community they want to create, and play this game in the way that they find most fun. The only way to properly enable this is to allow regions, within certain limits later defined, to act as they see fit. The complication of this is that, at root, all regions are sovereign. This sovereignty specifically arises from the wishes of the native, active population of a region; and so can only be overturned with the consent of the native, active population of a region. Regional sovereignty means that no region has a right to interfere in the way another region plays the game, merely the opportunity to intervene in help of others, if given the region in question’s consent. Collaborationist Frontierism is firmly opposed to raiding; in all cases save against those who would seek to ruin the game for others.

Regional Sovereignty is somewhat in tension with the ideology of Orthodox Marim-Grunzian Frontierism; at base Collaborationists do not believe we have a right to invade or occupy wasteland regions for simply lacking a developed enough regional government. After all, all frontiers started as inkling institutions, lacking a well-developed WA programme, or a mature military with well-defined military ranks. Moreover, we do not think that the term wasteland should be applied pejoratively to regions, as a denigration to regions which we look down our noses at, but instead that we should recognise them as new fields through which the Frontierist project can grow and prosper. What we do have, is the ability and duty to offer support to struggling frontiers, and aid them in developing a strong and native community. This extends beyond mere R/D issues to all aspects of developing a region’s infrastructure, such as sharing tech, giving them guidance on getting involved in the WA, or developing a regional government. Collaborationist Frontierism remains a Frontierist ideology through our commitment to helping wasteland and nascent Frontier regions to develop.

It is the opinion of the Rainbow House Government that we can and should help other regions; especially frontiers. Certainly if other regions come to us and ask for us to intervene to help their region, we should give them aid; but this must be done with the popular consent of the active, native, membership of the region. For example, if Community, when abandoned by its, intendedly temporary, Governor was to come to us and show via the RMB or regional Discord, that a majority of the region's native active membership were in support of intervention, it would of course be the Collaborationist’s duty to render aid. Similarly, if a fellow frontier is to fall victim to a raid, it would be the duty of the Collaborationist to jump to the defence of the victimised frontier. The critical difference in these cases, and that of Orthodox Marim-Grunzian Frontierism, is the respect for the sovereignty of the region in question, as manifested by the will of the region's active, native population.

We have no right to say that other regions are not playing the game correctly, provided people are upholding a basic respect for others. For this reason, we believe that we must move away from previous conceptions of Frontierism, to a more pacifist foreign policy.

As with all doctrines, there shall always be edge cases and exceptions. Regional sovereignty stems from the active, native membership of a region, and as such it is theoretically possible to permit offensive military action against regions with no active, native population, i.e., regions which have been totally abandoned. Tactically, such a move would probably be unwise; such a region would naturally have zero magnetism. No new nations would spawn there, unless something (e.g., a raid) were to happen there, and so there is no reason to intervene.

A more impactful exemption stems from the fact that respect for regional sovereignty forms a kind of social contract based on the mutual respect between different regions’s native active membership. If a region fails to respect at a basic level the sovereignty and personhood of either their own, or another region's native population, and thereby fail to uphold their end of the contract; they cease to be protected by the social contract. For this reason, imperialist and bigoted regions such as those which claim to be fascist, may not be protected under regional sovereignty. This agrees with the foundational principles of Orthodox Frontierism, as we see them. Frontierism arose because Marim Grunzy wanted to ensure that everyone had the opportunity to start in a region where they could grow to love NationStates. Nations with inherently discriminatory characters prevent this by creating an environment in which not all players feel welcome. Collaborationist Frontierism is not opposed to the raiding of bigoted or fascist regions, because these regions fail to create a welcoming regional environment, and intrinsically do not show respect to aspects of their native population whose contributions and perspectives they devalue. A region which is bigoted does not create a welcoming environment and, in all likelihood, will never become the sort of place which will allow all people to enjoy NationStates. This intrinsic lack which affects all hateful regions leaves them unable to to respect the player-base of other regions fully, due to their discriminatory character, and therefore is left unable to develop regional sovereignty. This is also in line with mainstream defender ideology; see the raid by several major defender regions against Zickton.

For clarity, there are 3 reasons we would consider militarily intervening in a foreign region:

1. We receive an invitation from the native active population of the region to assist them in removing a corrupt or negligent WA Delegate, or some other activity requiring military assistance.

2. A region is entirely devoid of a native active population. (Though even then we would probably not intervene, as all an intervention would do is increase the magnetism of an otherwise dead region)

3. The region is bigoted, fascist, or imperialistic, and therefore disrespecting the social contract of regional sovereignty & the imperative on all people to create an enjoyable NationStates environment for all.

Conclusion
We know we’re not infallible people, and there may come a time where we look back on this essay with hindsight. However, we do not believe, in our current stance, that we’ve made errors in developing our ideology or incorrectly presented our opinions. With all the international issues which have been going on, we’re glad that you’ve taken this time to read our little piece on our conception of Frontierism.

The Rainbow House of Communitas