“Expectation” by Song Zuying rang out through the halls of the Sandum Palace of the State (Sancta: Palaso de l’Etato) this morning. The momentum of the State was exemplified in the expectations of Sandus towards her policies; even though these policies are branded by some throughout the intermicronational community and represent a faction that has been vocal in their opposition to the return of Lethler, those opposed have neither evidence nor actual claims for what they state. Indeed, they must resort to name calling or language that is entirely beneath any micronationalist. Some have posted articles with the same, little amount they began using last night as they discussed the return of Lethler. Sadly, he has not been given the chance or opportunity to either defend himself or even become observant in the community due to the mass of melodrama against him.
The grand amount of pathos from those opposed is clear by simply looking towards the video of M. Bayer, who was apparently on the verge of a psychotic break-down last night whilst he was making a video in opposition, as well as his response. In fact, it is nearly just as sad to have seen such opposition defame this State for having “no internal activity“, an accusation which is neither found nor true. If M. Bayer would have conducted more research and not have promoted administrative policies which depict a bias in the community against our State, he would have discovered a nation which has been devoted entirely with its internal activity since the 27th of September, 2011. Since that date, we have completed massive reforms for our State, we have convened the first Congress of the Citizens’ Communist Party of Sandus, and most recently we have opened up a new form of citizenship, bureaucracy and taxation for our State. All of these things seem grand compared to Pristinia, M. Bayer’s state, whose backwardness is exemplified by his nation’s constant temporary attitude. M. Bayer continued in defaming the culture of our State, a culture that is often used as an example in many cases by micronationalists. Whilst M. Bayer may disagree with the bases of our culture, he would be wrong in claiming it as an embarrassment. Despite disdainful relations we may have with other states, our State is always used as an example of our success in micronationalism and within the community. His ignorance on the affairs of our State has been shown when he claims Godwin’s Law, yet he seems unfamiliar with the defaming statements cast down upon us from Zealandia’s king last Summer. He seems to be unaware of the good and honourable people with in this community and mistakes them for Lethler, who has not been present for months, though according to our own words those people would include M. Tierney and M. Castelletti, whose politics upon this matter vary greatly. He is constantly approving and affirming the very fact that we already know about him, and have known about him since he was Dresner, that is, according to M. Tierney, “simply harrassing people out of arguments when he has no real argument”. He has seemingly affirmed this in his own words when he states that he is “an egocentric near-sociopath”. His arguments are, as M. Tierney has pointed out, without much substance and are deserving of no attention. And no attention he shall receive from this State.
However, M. Fish has written an article with much more substance, thankfully, though he has explained many things wrong. He describes this official journal and national register of our State as being a mouth-piece for Lethler. Oddly enough, it is concerning as to how that would fair following the Barony of Sandus in the beginning quarter of 2010, when M. Lethler publicly criticised our State. Having begun to research Rennie-Gaffneyism and its tenets for a research paper in a Political Science course, the study of that ideology by members of our State has begun. It is not meant to incorporate that ideology into our State, but to incorporate certain key elements of it. For instance, the Active Micronational Cultural Development Theory is one key element that can apply to all micronations, not even those with such an ideology. Though certain elements of this tenet is debatable, the majority of this maxim is applicable to all micronations and has been observed by our State. It would be incorrect to call us the mouth-piece of M. Lethler, as the State of Sandus, as well, is a wholly independent state and, though we have invited M. Lethler back, we are, will and shall always remain sovereign and independent.
M. Fish continues, however, to state that this journal and our government has censored him. Indeed he did comment on the invitation, however it was an invitation — not a common article of this journal. Furthermore, M. Fish’s own nation has an embargo against this State. It would be unwise for him to have replied or concerned our affairs with his state, as we are a nation that is under a diplomatic embargo by the Federated Republics of A1. We thought it suspicious as to why M. Fish would respond, especially given our countless attempts to honour A1 with diplomatic relations which were all not responded to. As this official journal is an official function of our State, it would not be in his best interests to have commented. Therefore, we did not approve his comment.
It is odd, as well, that he cites the article concerning M. Lethler’s return and response as an instance of censorship of comments. However, M. Fish did not comment on that article and, therefore, it is the opinion of this journal’s staff that M. Fish added that article to wrongfully inflate his evidence of any sort of abuse by this official journal.
M. Fish continues, in this article, to exhibit some sort of paranoia by stating that this State was aware of M. Lethler’s return, as if some sort of conspiracy against the community was under-way. He insinuates some sort of wrong doing by this State as our invitation was published three days before M. Lethler’s return. Common sense and logic, however, would indicate that M. Lethler read the invitation to return and then returned. Even in the article which was an invitation upon this official journal, there stands out three instances that M. Fish must have skipped over. It would seem apparent, as he has been unaware of the fact that such article was an invitation, despite all other opponents to the invitation being cognisant of that fact.
M. Fish’s “why now” question is easily answered by common trends within this community. Activity and conflicts tend to rise from March onward. Indeed should M. Lethler return now, he would be an educative force by being at the most active time of the year. The entire purpose of our invitation was for the education of micronationalists and the advancement of decorum and ethics within this community, two items which many in the opposition have vehemently opposed since 2011 and late 2010.
The chaos in this invitation would be one of a lack of education on the common affairs of state or government. Micronationalists, more and more, are not being educated according to our decorum or ethics. Indeed, very few have mentors for which to educate them how to write. Towards those goals, this Government has felt it its duty in order to critique and pursue those policies of education by way of proof-reading Amager’s recent article on this subject. Such policy has been in place for nearly a year now, and it is a policy we shall continue to pursue. These nations are not obligated for unconditional support of our State or its policies, such as Tiana for an example. Tiana and Sandus have rough and rocky relations, though this policy was in place with their State. Whilst we may be in no position as an advisor to other states, it is our view in this policy that by cooperating together for the mutual help of nations both parties may be aided in the event. The only regret this State has concerning this policy is how we have not been able to been of help to other micronations.
TASPAC, in reality, may be nothing more than a social club. However, its own article on the Wiki states that it is an organisation and, even by acting as a social club, it acts as a bloc of nations that have found its way into the prominent positions or power in this community. Such a bloc of nations has constantly found itself in observing anti-Sandum policies, even when Sandus has sought to end hostilies between itself and TASPAC members or has extended its hands to TASPAC member-states for mutual cooperation and advancement. All attempts in the past, however, have been unilaterally denied by those members to a degree that is inconceivable and has led our State to come to the conclusion that TASPAC does not wish for peace but, rather, for the complete and utter destruction of the State of Sandus. A1’s complete disregard for its own embargo and its work to continuously harass and defame our State on the international stage is merely indicative of this State’s concerns. Indeed over the past few weeks, we have observed a bias by those officials in TASPAC, such as A1, against our State. Thankfully, under the authority of M. Tierney and M. Bralesford, that bias has finally put to an end. To those concerns, we are grateful to both competent administrators.
M. Fish continues, as well, to express doubts over M. Lethler’s sincerity over the argument of power. It is ironic, however, because M. Lethler has given his word and, should he violate it, M. Fish would have that as evidence for his claims. However, M. Fish substantiates his paranoid delusions with nothing of importance or remark. His own nation is based upon ground for a lack of truth. M. Fish has constantly claimed not to be in the community and, rather, to be in Micras, another cause for concern over his truth. His statements of “hero worship”, as well, are unfound. He believes that citing his reputation on the forum, which is a resounding four, as being hero worship. He must be unaware of what hero worship actually is, as it pre-dates M. Fishes argument by hundreds of years and many millennia. The basis of many of the world’s major religions today could be regarded as hero worship, the cults of Mithras and Julius Caesar are examples as well. Once more, M. Fish uses false evidence to attempt to substantiate his claims.
The final major paragraph claims many of the supporters of our front for M. Lethler’s return and for educative force in our community were not present. Already that is not true. This state is, as M. Fish pointed out, the most vocal in its support for M. Lethler’s policies and ideals, despite it not being his mouth-piece as he insinuated. M. Tierney, as well, was present at the time and he is the next most vocal. M. van der Hoeven was as well. As were many others who have not been vocal due to concerns that this sad and sorry opposition, which would not even let M. Lethler return in any degree out of paranoia, may in fact attack, defame, and cast them out as well. Sandus, however, has had less caution as those others. Despite M. Fish’s final and last call for the disregard of our views, our views do count. They are based upon the evidence of our current and present community and our own experiences as we faced under Lethler’s support and criticisms, support that such opposition have been unable to cast down with much purpose besides pathetic attempts by utilising pathos — hence the word “pathetic“. Though they may have been soft towards the criticisms of M. Lethler, there are many others who were not as soft. To those people, who have stood for the continued educative force that have made many of this community’s prominent members what they are today, the State of Sandus continuously extends our support and open friendship.
This opposition seems unprepared and incapable of fighting off this growing revolt against their final claims of major power. Indeed they may be concerned over the large amount of support or indefinite stance on this matter, as many have come to the same realisation that M. Lethler explained to me as a young micronationalist in June 2009. Differentiate between public and private friendships; even though you may be one, you do not necessarily have to be the other. That is why, even after countless events of disagreement between this State and Nemkhavia or St.Charlie, we still remain amiable in mutual foreign relations. Many micronationalists have realised this and utilise it in micronationalism; however, it seems that those in the opposition have never learned this fact and, as such, that is why they have found it incredibly difficult to differentiate their private experiences and distress from their public work and relations. To them, as always, Sandus extends its hands in support and amiable co-existence.
Regardless to these recent defamations and attacks against our State and this policy, one thing is certain. M. Lethler has returned and, from this State, we bid him greetings and extend our expectations of progress.
Authored by Gaius Sörgel Publicola, the Sôgmô of the State of Sandus, XVII A Martio MMXII.
— Sôgmô Sörgel.