What makes a country a country? Is it the fact that countries have millions of citizens? Is it due to countries being in the United Nations? Most people do not think about this issue, which is a key part of micronationalism. Micronations, as described by Microwiki, the micronation encyclopedia, are “small unrecognized nations which are often eccentric in nature” (Main Page). Micronations are self-declared independent states that wish to become countries. Micronations are generally groups of people who declare themselves countries. There are hundreds of micronations that currently exist as simulations of real world states or legitimate new nation projects that have declared independence from their associated macronation, or what micronationalists consider conventional countries. There are micronations with many types of governments and diverse cultures, as well as holidays and customs, which are created by their members. No micronation has been accepted into the United Nations, but they have obtained de facto recognition through negotiations and visits with ambassadors from some countries. Because of legal loopholes, legislation and international treaties, micronations should be considered sovereign nations and recognized as such.
First, there are many legal loopholes that allow for micronations to exist in the world. One of the most utilized loopholes is the Treason Act of 1495 which states that “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.” (Preamble) This is generally interpreted by scholars as any person acting as the de facto sovereign in a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations will be considered the monarch and it is thus illegal to deny their reign. One notable micronation, known as the Principality of Hutt River, declared independence under this provision in the Australian legal code. The self-proclaimed prince stated he would become a new nation loyal to England. The police came to his farm-nation as they claimed to be independent and did not pay taxes. After the farmer went to court with the Australian government, the court ruled it was illegal for the state to dispose of the leadership as they were acting with royal power over the land. Now, the self-proclaimed nation does not pay taxes to the Australian government and does not need to abide by their laws Another piece of legislations that is used by United States citizens declaring their homes as self-governing is the Declaration of Independence, which was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776 which affirms “That whenever any Form (sic) of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” This proves that the United States was founded on the idea that the people have a right to declare independence and to rule themselves through a government by the people if the government does become authoritarian or undemocratic in nature. Many micronationalists believe that most micronations are not in touch with the people and thus are not compelled to take their best wishes into account.
Secondly, international agreements and treaties confirm that micronations have a right to sovereignty. The Atlantic Charter reads: “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” This was signed by the US, the UK and many other nations in 1941. In a similar notion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1966, states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status…” Self determination is the right of people to rule over themselves and create their own state. These treaties clearly state that people have the right, under international law, to create their own nation and rule over it freely.
Finally, the most well-known and widely used piece of information for micronationalists is the Montevideo Convention. For the western hemisphere, the treaty outlines the duties and of a state in the international community. In the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, article one proclaims, “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Micronations do obtain governments, and most if not all have full constitutions. A defined territory generally consists of the houses of its members. A permanent population is comprised of the micronation’s citizens, and it has the capacity to enter relations with other states if they are asked. “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states”, stated in article three, proves that even without recognition, micronations can operate as international entities. Article five goes on to state, “The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever,” meaning that countries have no right to impede the workings of micronations. This is explained more in article eight with the clause “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.” Even without recognition, this applies to any state that fits the criteria affirmed in the treaty.
On the contrary, many people do not believe micronations are true countries because they cannot exhibit sovereignty over their land. According to Joseph Duncan, President of the People’s Republic of Tiana, “Well [if a person said I could not exhibit sovereignty], I'd say – ‘you're under arrest according to section 5, subsection 6, article 2c of the criminal code of the People's Republic of Tiana. You have the right to remain silent.’” By this statement, he is affirming the fact that micronations can enforce their own laws within their land. The definition of sovereignty, according to Webster’s dictionary, is “Supreme power especially an over body politic,” meaning that micronations can exert sovereignty if they can create their own laws and enforce them. This shows that micronations are sovereign states because they can be free from external influence through having their own government that creates policies and laws. Others will say that states must be a member of the United Nations to be a country, but nowhere in legal documents, unlike the declarative method to statehood, does it state that that is required of them. If this theory is correct, then no countries would have existed until after World War II and if a state needs consent to declare independence, then the United States is still a part of England.
Are micronations legitimate countries? Evidence shows that they should be recognized as such because of current laws and treaties signed by major world powers. Most micronationalists would agree, “We have a government, a flag, and meet the terms of the montevideo [sic] convention.” says Duncan. Since many micronations meet all the criteria necessary to become a state according to the international community, they should be given the sovereignty they deserve. All legal documents say that they are equal to current states, so they should be given the rights they are entitled to have.
Works Cited
Atlantic Charter. Treaty. August 1941.
Duncan, Joseph, Right Honourable, Sir, MZP DSU OWC KBOS OZL ZPO HZW
KC MLEB MLLB, Prime Minister, Minister of Health and Minister of Culture of The Kingdom of Zealandia, Supreme People’s Commissar of Tiana, Sultan of Hakka, Member of the Zonian Parliament, Flanderensisian Ambassador to the United States, Marquis and Viscount. Personal Interview. 1 February. 2012.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty. 16 December. 1966.
“Main Page.” Microwiki. 6 Feb. 2012. Microwiki.org.uk. 18 Jan. 2012
< http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Main_Page>
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. 26 December. 1933.
Showing posts with label micronations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label micronations. Show all posts
May 13, 2014
Oct 9, 2013
21st Century Monasteries and Edan
Various institutions are releasing updated demographics numbers over the next few months and the initial reports are as expected; all of Asia is below replacement fertility, as is all of Europe, all of South America, North Africa, South Africa, and other areas are close. The global fertility rate has been dropping for 50 years and shows no signs of stopping within the next 25, especially since the fertility tempo (average age of the birth of a first child) is also increasing.
The artificial gender imbalance caused by sex-selective abortion and ubiquitous ultrasounds means that the low fertility rates may be masking a more serious problem - sex ratios so skewed that the next generation will be much smaller than predicted. Areas of rural China have a 14 to 1 ratio of males to females in their young population (under 30 years old) and areas of India have an even higher imbalance, estimated to peak at almost 19 to 1. Overall these two nations alone have no less than 50 million men under the age of 30 who can never have a wife do to an artificial shortage of women.
The impact has been horrific for women - human trafficking, ubiquitous sexual assault, and physical attacks.
Meanwhile, the West continues to glorify hypergamy, fornication, and childlessness. Mass media dismisses the family and praises the ill and the dysfunctional. After creating an artificial 'teen culture' mass marketing continues their effort to sexualize all ages. Porn is prevalent to the point that actual art is being pushed out of public consciousness. And self-abuse so common that it is leading to mass impotence in the young.
The apparent triumph of low, or 'pop'. culture, the dismissal of morals and ethics by those who shout from rooftops for money, the replacement of education with credentialism and the accompanying trend of people delaying marriage and children in pursuit of worthless credentials and the associated high debt will continue to drive down fertility well after demographic implosion begins to destroy the current economic system. After all, a system based upon the assumption of perpetual growth cannot survive contraction!
And the weaknesses of Democracy are on full display as the various nation-states stagger toward the abyss.
What can we do about this?
Everything that matters.
The core ideals and principles of Edan are focused not just on the cardinal virtues but also on stability; Edan is meant to endure and thrive in the most difficult of times. How? It is structured like a family which, of course, reflects God's design. Rejecting the horrors of Communism and the dehumanizing effects of Capitalism; standing by the truth and rejecting relativism; maintaining and preserving high culture; reaching out to our neighbors in true charity. These are the things we can and will do.
Some have called Catholic homeschoolers the monasteries of virtue of the current truly Dark Age. Edan will join them in preserving civic virtue in a world collapsing under the weight of evil.
The artificial gender imbalance caused by sex-selective abortion and ubiquitous ultrasounds means that the low fertility rates may be masking a more serious problem - sex ratios so skewed that the next generation will be much smaller than predicted. Areas of rural China have a 14 to 1 ratio of males to females in their young population (under 30 years old) and areas of India have an even higher imbalance, estimated to peak at almost 19 to 1. Overall these two nations alone have no less than 50 million men under the age of 30 who can never have a wife do to an artificial shortage of women.
The impact has been horrific for women - human trafficking, ubiquitous sexual assault, and physical attacks.
Meanwhile, the West continues to glorify hypergamy, fornication, and childlessness. Mass media dismisses the family and praises the ill and the dysfunctional. After creating an artificial 'teen culture' mass marketing continues their effort to sexualize all ages. Porn is prevalent to the point that actual art is being pushed out of public consciousness. And self-abuse so common that it is leading to mass impotence in the young.
The apparent triumph of low, or 'pop'. culture, the dismissal of morals and ethics by those who shout from rooftops for money, the replacement of education with credentialism and the accompanying trend of people delaying marriage and children in pursuit of worthless credentials and the associated high debt will continue to drive down fertility well after demographic implosion begins to destroy the current economic system. After all, a system based upon the assumption of perpetual growth cannot survive contraction!
And the weaknesses of Democracy are on full display as the various nation-states stagger toward the abyss.
What can we do about this?
Everything that matters.
The core ideals and principles of Edan are focused not just on the cardinal virtues but also on stability; Edan is meant to endure and thrive in the most difficult of times. How? It is structured like a family which, of course, reflects God's design. Rejecting the horrors of Communism and the dehumanizing effects of Capitalism; standing by the truth and rejecting relativism; maintaining and preserving high culture; reaching out to our neighbors in true charity. These are the things we can and will do.
Some have called Catholic homeschoolers the monasteries of virtue of the current truly Dark Age. Edan will join them in preserving civic virtue in a world collapsing under the weight of evil.
Mar 22, 2012
Aristocracy and Society, part 2
As discussed in part I, equality of people means that all people are equal in their basic human rights; no more. In other areas people vary, often widely, in areas of physical and mental ability. This results, naturally and justly, into hierarchies among men in any group, institution or society.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.
Oct 6, 2011
Egalitarian or Leaderless?
A recent study from the Stanford University purports to show something that it may not, in fact, show. This study, which was actually a computer simulation, was an attempt to discover why the modern world is composed overwhelmingly by 'stratified' societies rather than by 'egalitarian' societies.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,
"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."
While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.
In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,
"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."
While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.
In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.
Jun 13, 2011
The First of Many
[A Post by HRH Jonathan]
I have been contemplating the situation of Israel and it's people, searching for a reason beyond Judaism that the "International Community" hates them so. And I have reached a conclusion; Israel is hated because it is the first of many, the first successful micro-nation. The Jewish people, spurred by the events of the 20th century, realized what all must eventually realize, that they shared an identity that separated them from the modern concept of the Nation-State. They realized that they were grouped together as a people, a culture, but that they were left behind in the era of regional identification of culture. So they came together and, through will and dedication, they fought through adversity and trials to make a place in the world that was for their culture.
Because in the end, while those who create a new path (Such as Edan) will prosper, and perhaps lead the way, the mass of the new countries that will emerge after the coming turmoil will be those that never lost their identity, the cultures that will reform after the death of this dark age. The peoples and kings that retain their will to be a Culture, not just a Nation.
Scotland and Ireland will never be subdued, and the will of the people remains strong, even in the face of the European Union. There is hope for England, whose people seem to embrace the royalty as the leaders of the true Culture of the land. Before our eyes the Mao Dynasty of China is ending, already the attempted destruction of traditional Chinese identity is failing. Perhaps the cataclysm in Japan will give the people back that which makes them a Culture, and return the Emporer to his rightful throne? Who can say.
But also many cultures and peoples will be lost in the Silent Revolution, the ones too weakened to reclaim their place. Russia may be bleeding away to memory, if something is not done the Culture within will never come back. France may vanish simply because of the Demographic Winter which is falling, despite their efforts to retain their culture. Many places in Africa have already become something else, so many places have become simply another modern Nation that the entire continent may lose the common base that connected the tribes and nations.
So let us laud Israel for showing the world the path, even as the Modern Dead Culture despises them.
Because in the end, while those who create a new path (Such as Edan) will prosper, and perhaps lead the way, the mass of the new countries that will emerge after the coming turmoil will be those that never lost their identity, the cultures that will reform after the death of this dark age. The peoples and kings that retain their will to be a Culture, not just a Nation.
Scotland and Ireland will never be subdued, and the will of the people remains strong, even in the face of the European Union. There is hope for England, whose people seem to embrace the royalty as the leaders of the true Culture of the land. Before our eyes the Mao Dynasty of China is ending, already the attempted destruction of traditional Chinese identity is failing. Perhaps the cataclysm in Japan will give the people back that which makes them a Culture, and return the Emporer to his rightful throne? Who can say.
But also many cultures and peoples will be lost in the Silent Revolution, the ones too weakened to reclaim their place. Russia may be bleeding away to memory, if something is not done the Culture within will never come back. France may vanish simply because of the Demographic Winter which is falling, despite their efforts to retain their culture. Many places in Africa have already become something else, so many places have become simply another modern Nation that the entire continent may lose the common base that connected the tribes and nations.
So let us laud Israel for showing the world the path, even as the Modern Dead Culture despises them.
Mar 26, 2009
Welcome to the World
Note: Some terms and basic definitions in this article were coined by the micronational theorist Cesidio Tallini. Cesidio has spent a decade in theory and his boundless energy has resulted in a huge output of ideas and concepts. However, some of his conclusions are radically different than the concept of Edan; Please assume that the concepts and conclusions here are solely those of HRM Richard and other Edanians.
The world of today looks much different than the world into which I was born. The terms "Eastern Bloc" and "western Bloc" mean nothing; the Cold War ended with a few weeks of TV coverage, not nuclear holocaust; instead of taking over the world, Communism is now a bit of a quaint notion. But certain ideas remain. Among these are the First World/Second World/Third World classification of nations. But these ideas are starting to change, too.
The term First World tends to mean the wealthiest nations on Earth; places like America, France, and Switzerland. These are, in some ways, what all other nations wish to be - rich and politically influential, usually with a powerful military.
Close on their heels is the Second World, nations like Russia and Egypt; not as wealthy, not as influential. Now, the difference between First and Second World nations is a hard one to draw, especially since it originally meant 'nations allied with the US' (First) and 'nations allied with the USSR' (Second). Since the end of the Cold War many scholars refer to all First and Second World nations as 'Developed Nations', reflecting their advanced infrastructure, manufacturing, knowledge-based economy, etc.
This leads us to the Third World, or the 'Developing Countries'. In general, this means 'nations not as rich or as well-developed as First and Second World nations', but not always. For example, while Afghanistan is relatively poorly developed and poor, Indonesia is a fairly wealthy nation and both are rather different than Mexico. Some have argued that 'Third World' in usage means 'someplace that gets aid money from another nation'.
Altogether, however, all of these terms refer to nation-states with defined borders, a set government, etc. This doesn't apply to everyone, leading to the development of the term Fourth World about 20 years ago.
The term 'Fourth World' has two meanings, unfortunately. To the UN, it means the very poorest or the poor nation-states, such as Sudan or Haiti. I believe this is because the UN is composed of and deals with nation-states. The older, academic, definition of Fourth World is 'a nation without a state', such as American Indians, Australian Aborigines, the Basque, the Kurds, the Tamil, etc. In short, people who share a common language (or shared one), history, culture, etc. but are either nomadic or have lost control of physical territory. So they look like a 'nation', act like one, think like one, but have no state. One of the prime examples of this is the Romani, commonly known in English as the Gypsies. Worldwide there are, probably, between 4 and 6 million Romani with a shared culture, history, ancestry, regional dialects, etc. - and no representation in the UN or other bodies because they are a stateless nation.
Some of these groups, however, have joined together and created the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. The UNPO is almost a 'UN for people who can't joine the UN'. The UNPO helps its members be heard in international diplomacy and helps them gain official recognition. Since its founding several nations of the UNPO have gone on to become members of the UN. With members ranging from the Turkmen to Taiwan, the UNPO shows that the Fourth World is as varied as the First, Second or Third.
Now we get to some original, and somewhat controversial, terms. The first is 'Fifth World", coined by Cesidio Tallini. My definition of the term differs from his a bit and is 'either a nation smaller and less coherent than existing Fourth World members, an active secessionist movement or a serious attempt at nation-building that has survived a decade or more'. An example of the former would be, say, one of the smaller tribes of American Indians that considers itself distinct but because of small size is forced to act as part of a larger tribe. An example of the second is the Tamil. An example of the latter is the Kingdom of Talossa; it has been around for decades, has a well-defined culture (including a language) and continues to exist and even grow. There aren't many Fifth World examples - this is primarily because the Fifth World is an 'in between' stage and, therefore, usually temporary. Nations only remain Fifth World if they are unable or unwilling to move to the Fourth world. In the case of small indigenous people groups they are hindered by poverty and exogamy. Talossa is, on the other hand, simply as big as they want to be.
This doesn't mean that there aren't a fair number of Fifth World nations, nor that a nation can't spend decades as part of the Fifth World. Just that few will remain there indefinitely. It also shouldn't be assumed that all Fifth World nations are transitioning from Sixth World status toward Fourth World membership - some groups are there as they 'fade away'.
The Sixth World, as I define it, consists of emergent secessionist groups or serious micronations that have not yet reached Fifth World levels of membership or culture. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and the Leauge of the South are examples of the former while the Republic of Molossia and Edan are examples of the latter. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and the League of the South are entirely serious secessionist movements. They both wish independence for a particular region and a particular people; its members share language, customs, and culture; they have political will and identifiable leaders. They sound like great candidates for the Fifth, even the Fourth, World. But they are still small and lack the sheer clout to 'move up', as it were. This doesn't mean they are wasted effort or foolishness; both groups have made political statements that have reached surprisingly large audiences and both show the promise of being bigger and more influential in the future. They are obviously influential enough in ideology and culture to be self-perpetuating.
Sixth World micronations are a bit more - scattered. Many in that group like where they are, like it a great deal. Molossia has had world-wide exposure, has many visitors, a tremendous amount of goodwill with other micronationalists, and seems to have no interest whatsoever in becoming a Fifth World nation. The Kingdom of Edan is paused on the upper edge of the Sixth World; currently we aren't even trying to grow the size of the community, although our ultimate goal is membership in the UNPO within 40 years. I agree with Cesidio on his definition of micronations in the Sixth world; they range from sizeable, stable communities that like being such to small nations that are in the process of building their cultural strength and citizenry.
Then we come to the Seventh World. When Cesidio write about the Seventh World, he refuses to capitalize it (making it 'seventh world') - I tend to agree. The vast majority of micronations are created, exist, and end in the seventh world. Micronations like Choconya, the Principality of St. Valentine, the Jahn Empire, and Port Colice (don't bother, they are all gone) are some of the past examples of seventh world nations. Current examples are Cakeland, The Republic of North Altania, and Scientopia. These nations tend to be created by people who are very young, have a burst of activity at the beginning, and quickly start making alliances amongst themselves, particpate in (*cough*) "wars" with other seventh world micronations, have 5 political parties in a population of 12 people, and so on.
Let me be clear; I don't think there is anything "wrong" about any of these activities of seventh world groups. It is obviously a lot of fun or there wouldn't be so darn many of them: this index lists over 540 micronations, the vast majority of which no longer exist - and the index is only a fraction of the micronations that have come into existence and faded away in the last decade or so. In a way, seventh world micronations should be seen as a form of roleplaying game. Perhaps we should even consider large MMORPG's like World of Warcraft to be part of the seventh world, too.
Heck, some of them 'bleed over' into the Sicth World. The Empire of Reunion is a lot like any other seventh world micronation - but it has been around a long time, has (or at least has had) a substantial population, and has developed a strong culture. Its a Sixth World nation, but almost despite itself (note: HRM Richard is a fan of the Empire of Reunion and has been for years).
This framework of ideas allows you to see the proposed progression of Edan more clearly. Currently, Edan is a Sixth World nation working hard to build the foundation to take it to the Fifth World. Once there the Kingdom will focus on growth and concept until sheer mass of numbers (citizens) and weight of culture allows it to exert a broad enough influence to join the Fourth World. After that its just more of the same.
More to come soon.
The world of today looks much different than the world into which I was born. The terms "Eastern Bloc" and "western Bloc" mean nothing; the Cold War ended with a few weeks of TV coverage, not nuclear holocaust; instead of taking over the world, Communism is now a bit of a quaint notion. But certain ideas remain. Among these are the First World/Second World/Third World classification of nations. But these ideas are starting to change, too.
The term First World tends to mean the wealthiest nations on Earth; places like America, France, and Switzerland. These are, in some ways, what all other nations wish to be - rich and politically influential, usually with a powerful military.
Close on their heels is the Second World, nations like Russia and Egypt; not as wealthy, not as influential. Now, the difference between First and Second World nations is a hard one to draw, especially since it originally meant 'nations allied with the US' (First) and 'nations allied with the USSR' (Second). Since the end of the Cold War many scholars refer to all First and Second World nations as 'Developed Nations', reflecting their advanced infrastructure, manufacturing, knowledge-based economy, etc.
This leads us to the Third World, or the 'Developing Countries'. In general, this means 'nations not as rich or as well-developed as First and Second World nations', but not always. For example, while Afghanistan is relatively poorly developed and poor, Indonesia is a fairly wealthy nation and both are rather different than Mexico. Some have argued that 'Third World' in usage means 'someplace that gets aid money from another nation'.
Altogether, however, all of these terms refer to nation-states with defined borders, a set government, etc. This doesn't apply to everyone, leading to the development of the term Fourth World about 20 years ago.
The term 'Fourth World' has two meanings, unfortunately. To the UN, it means the very poorest or the poor nation-states, such as Sudan or Haiti. I believe this is because the UN is composed of and deals with nation-states. The older, academic, definition of Fourth World is 'a nation without a state', such as American Indians, Australian Aborigines, the Basque, the Kurds, the Tamil, etc. In short, people who share a common language (or shared one), history, culture, etc. but are either nomadic or have lost control of physical territory. So they look like a 'nation', act like one, think like one, but have no state. One of the prime examples of this is the Romani, commonly known in English as the Gypsies. Worldwide there are, probably, between 4 and 6 million Romani with a shared culture, history, ancestry, regional dialects, etc. - and no representation in the UN or other bodies because they are a stateless nation.
Some of these groups, however, have joined together and created the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. The UNPO is almost a 'UN for people who can't joine the UN'. The UNPO helps its members be heard in international diplomacy and helps them gain official recognition. Since its founding several nations of the UNPO have gone on to become members of the UN. With members ranging from the Turkmen to Taiwan, the UNPO shows that the Fourth World is as varied as the First, Second or Third.
Now we get to some original, and somewhat controversial, terms. The first is 'Fifth World", coined by Cesidio Tallini. My definition of the term differs from his a bit and is 'either a nation smaller and less coherent than existing Fourth World members, an active secessionist movement or a serious attempt at nation-building that has survived a decade or more'. An example of the former would be, say, one of the smaller tribes of American Indians that considers itself distinct but because of small size is forced to act as part of a larger tribe. An example of the second is the Tamil. An example of the latter is the Kingdom of Talossa; it has been around for decades, has a well-defined culture (including a language) and continues to exist and even grow. There aren't many Fifth World examples - this is primarily because the Fifth World is an 'in between' stage and, therefore, usually temporary. Nations only remain Fifth World if they are unable or unwilling to move to the Fourth world. In the case of small indigenous people groups they are hindered by poverty and exogamy. Talossa is, on the other hand, simply as big as they want to be.
This doesn't mean that there aren't a fair number of Fifth World nations, nor that a nation can't spend decades as part of the Fifth World. Just that few will remain there indefinitely. It also shouldn't be assumed that all Fifth World nations are transitioning from Sixth World status toward Fourth World membership - some groups are there as they 'fade away'.
The Sixth World, as I define it, consists of emergent secessionist groups or serious micronations that have not yet reached Fifth World levels of membership or culture. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and the Leauge of the South are examples of the former while the Republic of Molossia and Edan are examples of the latter. The Kingdom of Hawai'i and the League of the South are entirely serious secessionist movements. They both wish independence for a particular region and a particular people; its members share language, customs, and culture; they have political will and identifiable leaders. They sound like great candidates for the Fifth, even the Fourth, World. But they are still small and lack the sheer clout to 'move up', as it were. This doesn't mean they are wasted effort or foolishness; both groups have made political statements that have reached surprisingly large audiences and both show the promise of being bigger and more influential in the future. They are obviously influential enough in ideology and culture to be self-perpetuating.
Sixth World micronations are a bit more - scattered. Many in that group like where they are, like it a great deal. Molossia has had world-wide exposure, has many visitors, a tremendous amount of goodwill with other micronationalists, and seems to have no interest whatsoever in becoming a Fifth World nation. The Kingdom of Edan is paused on the upper edge of the Sixth World; currently we aren't even trying to grow the size of the community, although our ultimate goal is membership in the UNPO within 40 years. I agree with Cesidio on his definition of micronations in the Sixth world; they range from sizeable, stable communities that like being such to small nations that are in the process of building their cultural strength and citizenry.
Then we come to the Seventh World. When Cesidio write about the Seventh World, he refuses to capitalize it (making it 'seventh world') - I tend to agree. The vast majority of micronations are created, exist, and end in the seventh world. Micronations like Choconya, the Principality of St. Valentine, the Jahn Empire, and Port Colice (don't bother, they are all gone) are some of the past examples of seventh world nations. Current examples are Cakeland, The Republic of North Altania, and Scientopia. These nations tend to be created by people who are very young, have a burst of activity at the beginning, and quickly start making alliances amongst themselves, particpate in (*cough*) "wars" with other seventh world micronations, have 5 political parties in a population of 12 people, and so on.
Let me be clear; I don't think there is anything "wrong" about any of these activities of seventh world groups. It is obviously a lot of fun or there wouldn't be so darn many of them: this index lists over 540 micronations, the vast majority of which no longer exist - and the index is only a fraction of the micronations that have come into existence and faded away in the last decade or so. In a way, seventh world micronations should be seen as a form of roleplaying game. Perhaps we should even consider large MMORPG's like World of Warcraft to be part of the seventh world, too.
Heck, some of them 'bleed over' into the Sicth World. The Empire of Reunion is a lot like any other seventh world micronation - but it has been around a long time, has (or at least has had) a substantial population, and has developed a strong culture. Its a Sixth World nation, but almost despite itself (note: HRM Richard is a fan of the Empire of Reunion and has been for years).
This framework of ideas allows you to see the proposed progression of Edan more clearly. Currently, Edan is a Sixth World nation working hard to build the foundation to take it to the Fifth World. Once there the Kingdom will focus on growth and concept until sheer mass of numbers (citizens) and weight of culture allows it to exert a broad enough influence to join the Fourth World. After that its just more of the same.
More to come soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)