On the Leading Dedication of Sandum Society

Ave, Sandum Civilae, et sapiento eotae benedictun.

For centuries — even millennia — the world has always had nations with the whole intent of self-preservation and complete independence. Sparta, the enemy of Athens and seen through history as a “vile” state, was one of those nations whose populous was dedicated to the preservation of the state by military means: Spartan men trained their youth away in the Agoge and the Spartan women were told to exercise with them so that they could give birth to warrior men. What developed was a state dedicated to the preservation of its polis by the walled-defence, not of stone but, of the flesh and strength of Spartan men. Rome, the founding state of Western civilisation, was one of those nations whose populous and both plebeians and patricians alike partook in military, political and religious affairs in dedication to the state: early Rome expanded, not out of desire for empire but, for the self-defence of the Eternal City. What became of Rome was a majestic city and an empire which maintained a tolerant and cultured society that stretched from Iberia to Armenia, Scotland to Kush. England, the major constituent nation of the United Kingdom, was one of those nations whose expansion came in response, as Roma’s, to the expansion of its enemies: its colonies expanded in necessity for the wealth of that kingdom and its military expanded to meet the growing list of enemies. What became of England would create a zenith of world imperialism that led all other empires to jealousy and a military that is prepared to defend its realm to this day. The United States, the world’s only remaining super-power, was one of those nations whose independence and the assertion thereof by the Monroe Doctrine would catalyst into imperialism in, first, the Americas and then, later, the entire world. What became of the United States is the current intrusive and imperialist state that is undermining the basic values and sovereignty of peoples around the world. All of these states, towards the ends of preservation of their state, meet and uphold the desire of imperialism. Like those before us, who were united by a dedication and goal for the preservation of their nation and state, so too should we dedicate ourselves to Sandus; but let us be like the Mid-Spartans, like the Early Romans, British and Americans and not devolve ourselves to the desire of imperialism.

Sparta developed a polis which united men and women to the task of war, in a region where war was frequent. This dedication was to the very ideal of Spartan livelihood: wage war in defence for Sparta. War was waged in self-defense and advancement, through the bringing of Helots, of Sparta. Sparta quickly conquered Laconia, granting them Perioikoi-citizenship, and waged war in the rest of the Peloponnese. Sparta would eventually bear arms against Athens: a more liberal polis that advanced the arts and philosophy. Sparta won against Athens in a Pyrrhic victory that would lead them to defeat later against the Sacred Bands of Boeotian Thebes. Sparta expanded its alliance and empire too far, straining both resources and men, leading to their defeat against Thebes. Only 40 years later, all of the Greek poleis would be conquered by Philip of Macedon. It is quite clear: the Golden Age, as it was in Athens, was before the Peloponnesian War, before the expanding Spartan League would strain the resources of Sparta and its Perioikoi-allies and would lead to its downfall. One of the catalysts for the Peloponnesian War was the disputes in the Athenian and Spartan colonies on Sicily and the continuing trade dispute between Sparta and Athens. Although the reasons for empire tend to arise due to defence or resources one could gain in order to promote the livelihood in their home-country, imperialism led to the downfall of Sparta and of Athens: two Greek empires that duelled it out and both lost — a loss, not only for them but, for all of Greece that would lose its polis’ national identity with the unification of Greece by Macedonia.

Rome, from its beginning city-state, developed an empire that was tolerant of all the peoples it conquered; much like the Inca. Rome respected the culture and gods of the people it vanquished until the basic fabric of Roman life was challenged by Christians in the later Empire. However, in Sandus, we allow educative discussion. That is our culture and liberty. However, in the beginning, Rome was little more than a city-state which fought for its self-defence. Rome, under the guidance of Romulus during a festival to Neptune Equester, enacted raptio of the Sabine women and fought off the Sabine men in order to have wives. This “rape” was not imperial or immoral: the Roman men required wives in order to have families and, thus, to have prosperity for Roma. Their rape was not a sexual misconduct but a carefully devised manner in order to allow the Sabine women free-will to choose, as the Sabine parents denied marriage of their daughters to the Roman men. Romulus spoke to each woman in person, offered their free choice, promised civic and property rights to the women and, according to Livy, “pointed out to them that it was all owing to the pride of their parents in denying the right of intermarriage to their neighbours. They would live in honourable wedlock, and share all their property and civil rights, and–dearest of all to human nature–would be the mothers of free men.” War was raged against the Romans by the Sabines under Titus Tatius as Romulus attacked two tribes, killed their kings and routed their armies and Titus Tatius attacked the city of Rome. Tarpeia’s betrayal of Rome led to her death by the Sabines, as she was crushed and fell from the rock which bears her name. Rome won this war by default as the Sabine women showed bravery before the warring parties of their fathers and husbands, resulting in the pacification of the Sabines and their immigration to Rome in reconciliation. Rome would later wage war against the Etruscans to the North and the Latins to the South in order to preserve their frontiers. Rome would, under the Republic, further consolidate their frontiers against Qart-Hadast or Karthago. This expansion would be a cyclic occurrence: in Rome’s early history, it was necessary to preserve the city against the Etruscans, Latins and Sabines; however, it continued to re-occur against the Carthaginians, Gauls, Greeks, Egyptians, Iberians, Dacians, Thracians, Parthians, Numidians, Germans, Britons and Picts, amongst others. This constant effort to preserve the frontier did more than preserve it: it expanded it. All Romans were willing, from the Kingdom to the Republic and to the zenith of the Empire, to serve Rome by its military. Indeed, from the Kingdom to the early Empire, to serve in the Roman military was as prided as a Spartan serving in the phalanx. To give your life to Rome, to the Emperor or the Republic, and to the State was as precious as the death of a Spartan soldier to Sparta. This self-less dedication, however unneeded and unnecessary towards the end of the history of Sparta and Rome, was necessary for the basic existence and life at the beginning of both Sparta and Rome. Their self-less dedication, and their willingness to give their life for the State, is not only a romanticism which continues to this day but was also necessary for the existence of the early state. However, there must come a point when that romanticism must be vanquished and life to the State must be as precious as the deathless ideal. This romantic idea of dying for the State, which allowed and enabled legions of Roman men to follow the State to the death in the order of expansion and imperialism, must only be formed out of necessity and in need for the very advancement or existence of the State. The Soviet Union, a nation whose beginning existence was questionable by revolution, counter-revolution, civil war and foreign invasion, placed a large importance on that deathless ideal in its early history. It died away at the end of the Civil War, only to return again under a new questionable existence in the Great Patriotic War, or World War II. After the Great Patriotic War, the party did away with that romanticism: rather, the romanticism of the Worker and Farmer was re-introduced, as it was introduced following the Civil War. However, in Rome and in Sparta, there was no such vanguard that was able to unite the republic or the politeia in ending such a romanticism. This necessity for defence would catalyst the British Empire and lead to its imperialist expansion in order to gather resources and wealth for the defence of Britain and, then later, the Empire.

Thr United States of America was formed by revolution due to a perceived growing incursion on American political sovereignty and independence. The Revolution was fought to assert that independence from Britain: both its parliament and the crown. Its goals were to create a free nation with a republican form of government that would protect the interests of business, as business owners were the largest percentage of pro-revolution peoples in America at the time and they viewed the British laws as being detrimental to their liberty to conduct business. This political system was one that, in the beginning, did indeed assert independence: the Monroe Doctrine, which declared that Europe ought to remain in its own hemisphere and America shall remain in its own, was quickly enforced by the early American government. Overtime, the concept of “manifest destiny”, the belief that America had a god-given goal to reach the Pacific, would manifest the Monroe Doctrine into a policy that stated that America could intervene in the affairs of nations in its hemisphere, but other nations should not intervene in America’s affairs. Today, both “manifest destiny” and this warped Monroe Doctrine has converted a nation that stood for national independence into a nation which “polices” the world — it objectively enforces and supports its version of “democracy” throughout the world and crushes all forms of government that go against its form of government. It is, in this manner, that America is now an empire that, unlike the empires of past, has a hand in nearly every pot. It no longer expands itself to enforce the security of its borders or frontiers, but it expands its military might to promote its jingoistic economic goals by using the world over as its puppets. We live in a world where now even sovereign governments are not respected in their rights to preserve their own sovereignty; and, in response to the various violations of American imperialism over the sovereignty of states and nations, we live in a world where paramilitaries are being formed, in both America and elsewhere, to assert their sovereignty from the American imperial government. The attacks by Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center in 1993 and 2001, however inhumane and terrible in affect, are in fact very real political expressions and protests against the American government’s continuous stationing of American military personnel in Saudi Arabia and CIA officials in Afghanistan, both respectively after the Gulf War and the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The People’s Republic of China has protested the American Air Force patrolling the South China Sea to monitor the People’s Republic of China, which would result in the Hainan Island Incident. Recently, North Korea has protested the American involvement on the Korean peninsula by attacking outlying islands with artillery and attacking a patrolling South Korean submarine; the United States, in response to these armed protests which followed clear diplomatic protests by the North Korean government, conducted military exercises off of the western coast of North Korea, despite North Korea’s government protesting the action. Most recently, as well, the Navy of Iran has expressed that it will begin patrols of the US East Coast in protest of the American Navy patrolling the Persian Gulf, which Iran deems to be violating the integrity of their borders. This very imperialism is detrimental to the sovereignty of states and will continue until the aggressive advances of the United States is stopped by sovereign states; Sandus should do all in its power to assert its independence and sovereignty from the United States.

Our state, in regards to the current time and our hopes for sovereignty and independence, should follow the example of our predecessors. We should follow the example of the Spartans, who were willing to defend their polis by their iron-hard will and power. Our iron-hard will and power should be the manifest social promotion of socialism and our sovereignty and integrity from the world around us: expressing our existence as a wholly sovereign nation. Such is a difficult expression to face, especially in light of the ostracism of similar peoples such as ourselves from the current modern society. We should show our strength not by the phalanx or by war but by the basic and elementary expression of our sovereign will for independence and socialism. Being a nation split across continents, how can we achieve socialism? Of course, first we must enforce a state wherein all people are indeed working for the common welfare of the nation. Such can not happen at our current ages, but it is possible in the future. Towards that expression of our sovereignty and our goal of socialism, the people and the party should begin to lay out realistic goals on the very current existence of Sandus, including the democratic expression of the people through the various channels provided by the current government. Like the Romans before us, we ought to perform our duties to the best of our abilities to the State. Our deaths are not literal but metaphoric of the shedding of the current life we have maintained in such a capitalist society; we must prepare ourselves for that shedding of that life and prepare for a time when we unite the state through the complete power of the national masses and communise the state into a complete coherent bloc of peoples. It is that goal of communism and the socialisation of the commune that we must strive for following our shedding of life from capitalist society in order to express our sovereignty as a state from it. The party, therefore, must not only begin to discuss realistic goals for the short-term period whilst we are currently incapable of providing for our sovereignty but we must also begin to discuss the realistic goals of life following the foundation of such a commune of Sandus and the sovereignty which we shall enjoy at that time. However, even following such a communism of Sandus as a sovereign commune and state, we must be mindful of the independence that will be so readily available to strain our resources such as the Spartans and Romans or demean our state to immoral actions as the Americans; rather, we must found within our state a vanguard of the people and of the party to protect and prevent the state from falling victim to imperialism.

The failure of the Spartans, Romans and Americans was not only imperialism: it was the failure to prevent imperialism from forming, so that such conditions could exist. The Spartans, Romans, Americans and all empires in our world’s history to date have all met, or will meet, the same unfortunate end: demise. There exists differences in their demises; the empires of India and China live on through their people because they did not wholly fall victim to imperialism as their empires did not expand beyond their necessities. The Mauryan, Gupta and Qin-Han Empires maintained their states for so long, and their societies continue to exist, because they kept their empires more manageable for themselves than the empires of Sparta or Rome. The native American empires of the Aztec and Inca failed to secure their long societal endurance because their states, too, expanded far beyond necessity and usurped several regions and nations of people for their desires, rather than for their necessities. How can we prevent ourselves and our state from imperialism? In this modern age, there exists a few examples of states such as ourselves who are socialist, able to assert their sovereignty from empires and have been able to prevent imperialism in their policies. Two examples, which are worth-while to examine are the Republic of Cuba, which maintains its sovereignty despite its closest neighbour, the United States of America, blocking the commerce of the state, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, whose Juche policy stresses the sovereignty and independence of Korea from foreign nations. Both of these nations have vanguards in place which prevent imperialistic policies by their governments: the Communist Party of Cuba and the Korean Worker’s Party. These vanguard need not be such socialist parties such as ourselves; one could take the Royal family of the Kingdom of Tonga, a country which also maintains its state independent and sovereign of imperialism and prevents the state from imperialist policies. However, as Sandus has recently transitioned to a more democratic system and maintains constitutional socialism within its state, we must take the examples of Cuba and North Korea. North Korea is a shining example of sovereignty; even more than Cuba’s, who’s sovereignty is maintained due to the embargo by the United States on Cuba. If we put aside the concepts that we have of North Korea as a murderous, hero-worshipping regime, we will see that Juche’s intentions are self-preservation, self-sustenance and independence. This is why, even despite the Arduous March in North Korea — the name given to the 1990s famine in North Korea, North Korea has maintained its sovereignty even after the fall of its closest economic supporter and partner: the Soviet Union. In the past, our government has affirmed Juche-thought under the title “Libera“; but, with the coming growth of the party in government affairs, it is something that the party and government should focus on more, especially if our true goal is sovereignty and independence for our State. We must take the example of North Korea — self-reliance in economic affairs, independence in political affairs and self-defense of the state and our sovereignty — and use it towards our own revolution in the idea of founding the commune of Sandus. Should we — the government, party and people — uphold Juche-thought as an ideology for the continuous sovereignty and independence of Sandus in both pre-commune and commune Sandus time-periods, we may grow our state to new heights and achievements which shall rival those of even our closest micronational allies.

This November, the party must set itself to work in creating and affirming the sovereignty of Sandus in order prepare for goals and achievements for Sandus before and after such a foundation of a commune. We must not focus on the details of the commune but on the system, ideals and goals we wish to achieve as a state. We must be realistic in forming our state and asserting our sovereignty and independence form the world around us. Should we do this, we may indeed create a wholly sovereign and independent state. However, we may only form a socialist society, wherein all Sandum people work for the betterment of the state and for each-other, when we are all — all Sandum people — are dedicated to the revolution ahead of us. I once believed, as the founder of this party and the founder of this state, that our revolution was fought when we asserted our independence; however, the revolution is still on-going and we, all Sandum citizens, must fight it passively in order to support and affirm our state and our sovereignty in the future. With the whole force of the Sandum people, united in government and led by the party, like our revolutionary predecessors before us, we shall succeed. Our goal is not aggression or oppression, it is not our vanity through the suffering of others; our goal is socialism by sovereignty of Sandus, which can only be achieved by the passive-aggressive revolution of our masses to form a commune in the future. Such a revolution should not be taken lightly, it took long for Lenin and the Bolsheviks to plan the glorious Socialist October Revolution: we must take longer. We are not planning to win over an entire nation of people, but create a new nation wherein socialism is elementary. It took long for Romulus to found Rome and even longer for it to become the Eternal City; it took long for Sparta to become a powerful polis in Laconia; and, it took long for the United States to wage revolution for its independence. Longer it will take us, as no such institutions were in place before us, no such nations of people were in place before us. We shall be but a commune of united people, waging passive revolution towards the end of suffering by socialism. Si eotae marchomun et revoltomun, eotae fueramen una etato, fueramen una populo, una Sandus.

— Sôgmô et Præsidensa de la Partio Sörgel.

One thought on “On the Leading Dedication of Sandum Society

  1. Bravo! Excellent speech. I think this about sums up the micronational struggle for independence in its entirety. Though not Socialist, Nemkhavia faces the same goal of one day achieving independence as a sovereign nation-state. In fact, we are planning ahead in terms of infrastructural development and costs. We estimate that for a nation of 850 people, one needs about 7 km² of land in order to become self-sustaining, and that’s if you only count wind farms, chicken, wheat and various garden produce as requirement for self-sustenance. Altogether, with development included, we have estimated that to begin our plan by 2035 we need at least $9.1 mil for land, and another $90 mil for the infrastructural development. It is certainly a large task ahead of us. But as the German saying goes, “Wo ein Wille ist, da ist ein Weg.” – where there is a will, there is a way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s