It is on the eve that this nation is to be annexed by the Federal Republic of St.Charlie that I write this. Perhaps the age of such heated replies will no longer be needed, but as of this time I am here to focus our attention to one, grave “group” that has recently been founded.
Not only has this nation plagued our community, once serene and peaceful, with aggression and a “war“, but it now is poised to catalyst our community deeper into chaos and into archaic times. Following the dissolution of the Democratic People’s Republic, I thought that such a time of factions would be long-awaited. Yet, only a few months past, I began to realise such was not the case. It seems that now M. Virgili would like to go beyond plagiarism, go beyond blatant aggression and now seed the fruit of a deterioration of the overall peace of our community. Many of us remember the factions of March through July, Conservatives and Communists. Now, today, we are befell by a “group” that threatens to re-establish the long-ago archaic-factions. Such a group, I discuss, is the “Group of Nine”.
I did indeed promise such a “letter” to the members of the Micropolitan, a relatively small “club” of delegates discussion – for the most part – non-political and non-micronational subjects. However, I believe that this “letter” is needed to clarify as to exactly, to people who voted against the G9 deletion, why such a project should be deleted and terminated. However, first, let us examine and determine the differences between “groups” or “factions” and “alliances” or “organisations”. As we see, for example, in the OAM, such groups of people are united under a democratic medium to provide for the democratic mean of the will of the states, or of the delegates of the states. However, under such a “group of Nine”, there lies no direct codification of any such democratic mean; thus forth, one can only interpret that such a group of Nine is a group of nations bound together by a binding ideal or purpose. So, where as the OAM is comprised of many groups of nations, with varying ideals or purposes, the G9 lacks such a codified democratic mean, only leaving one with the expectation that the G9 will be led under the tyrannical rule of the President.
But what does this rise of faction mean to us, as states? Many of us, who have been around for atleast a few month, will remember those times — nicknamed by some as the Great Ideological Dispute — where Conservatives and Communists argued and, simply, “battled”. But what were these two sides? Where they organisations by democratic means or factions? We can see that both sides had one sole ideal and founding philosophy; that neither had a democratic system between delegates of those nations nor was there ever an established delegation. That renders us completely certain that factions were at play in the events of the last few months, that there was no one delegation but a leader the rest looked up to for ideological support and help. For the Communists, that is undeniably M. Lethler; for the Conservatives, M. Bradley. Does the G9 have a democratic delegation? No, their article — the only source of knowledge on its existence — does not provide for a single democratic delegation for representatives of member-states, only for a “President” of the G9. Does the G9 have a founding ideal or purpose? Yes, we do know because of their article on the MicroWiki that the G9’s founding purpose is to talk about the community and “direct” international politics; it’s members, too, are members who are hand-chosen by M. Virgili — “more active and important micronations”.
To me, this reeks of something long gone. Micronational Superpowers. Indeed, the more active and important micronations are arguable, definitely. I would argue that Kremlum Sandus is very active and that we are very important; but are we as active to and important to another nation, say Los Bay Petros? No, it is all about one’s perception of activity and importance that lead to this faction and, in our case, this one is M. Virgili — a man who has spread discord and aggression within our community. Long ago the very ideas of Micronational Superpowers was disestablished, disestablished by the same public mean that has ordered many micronationalists out — M. Lethler and the-then M. Dresner — and has the ability to now disestablish this faction from forming.
But what harm can it do, besides reaping the seeds of the perception of “Micronational Superpowers”? Perhaps more than the unwarranted pain and pity of the past aggression of past factions. Say if a micronationally-“inferior” micronation to this G9 was to counter the “direction” of international politics — one of the purposes of the G9, as per their own article — what would they leave the G9 to do but have the ability to remove such a micronation from the community, by force or by pressure. More so, I am worried about the function of “direct[ing] international politics”, because it seems to me as if this could foster the possibility of subversion of our individual sovereignties. Say, should the G9 promote a plan to establish a pro-Social Democratic policy, where it only communicated with near-Social Democratic governments, what would that do for less-Social Democratic countries? For example, libertarian nations like Eleytheria, Hurricane or Wyvern, it would only alienate those, possibly leading to the foundation of another faction; only to lead to the foundation of an entirely new “great ideological dispute”.
I must say, I do not write this tonight because of Atlantis or their president or the insurrections imposed by them on my possible-future mother-country of St.Charlie, I write this because in our community, I do not believe we need factions for a very, very long time. I am assured that peace will only be harmed in our community, assured by the evidence I have provided to you and the possible means of tyranny proposed by this Republic. I do not ask that you join me in my condemnation, only be mindful of the environment of our community and how it may change, and mindful of the perception of some to come to conclusion that such a leading force should be made. Messieurs-dames, je vous dit «au revoir».