The State of Sandus, its Central People’s Government, and the Office of the Sôgmô have been questioning much lately, especially when it comes to the upcoming reforms concerning Socilivae. How does Socilivo citizenship, or its proposed changes, relate to Imperialism and Federalism? Are the changes moving closer to both? In a Socilivo-Sandum relationship, would both states be equal in their influence or would Sandus be a hegemon? Is hegemony always imperialistic? Today, another questioning guiding citizenship has been added: is Nationalism — the personal identity as being a member of a nation — always bad?
M. Jacob Tierney, Meritarch of Renasia, and the Sôgmô held this discussion in the Grand Unified Micronational, which was initially an argument on Right vs. Left Nationalism. The two, however, began to delve deeper into the more profound regions of the topic. With the Sôgmô taking the side that Nationalism is not always bad and the Meritarch believing that all Nationalism is inherently bad (unless if that identity is voluntary), both statesmen entered the conversation, which initially focused on macronations and later, more profoundly, on micronations.
Both agreed that Nationalism is mostly, but not always, negative in result, due to the rising collective-ego of the nation. Nationalism gives way to superiority, to conflict of nations, and to an ego of the individual for being born into a particular nation. However, this ego is unfound and often negative because it is seldom the result of the individual’s own person or work: one is linked to a nation at birth, given clan-like socialisation in supporting it (and those who discern from that political socialisation are often shunned), and lives a life ignorant of other nations as a result of his own — to a degree, of course. Nationalism yields the individual to the power of the landed-elite of a country, and gives one up to those who hold the wealth, prestige, and power of both states and nations; it does this because one’s identity becomes that of a macronation whose own identity is held captive at the hands of the rich bourgeoisie and all such members of the elite. Of course, in our modern age, we must contend with being of a different nation than a state (as they may over lap or be subject to another). Identity established on either yield the same results.
For micronations, our nationalism (the identity) is vastly different, both statesmen agreed. For one, it is power: in a macronation, a citizen or national has little power over his own state or nation; in a micronation, however, a citizen or national wields much power over their micronation. Micronations are much smaller, much more fluid; whereas, macronations are large and rigid to be effectively influenced by a citizen. Most importantly, a micronation’s nationalism is chosen, whereas a macronation’s is ascribed at birth; the Sôgmô noted that this too is an extent of an individual’s “power”, as they have the power to choose. The grandeur of creating one’s own nation, of their own work, therefore, becomes their identity, whereas the identity of a macronationalist is given out of exploitative relationships from the power of the elite to the individual.
Consider, then, micronations, such as Molossia and Sealand, who have individuals born into citizenship. Whilst these citizens may still be born into a smaller nation, whereby their own work is magnified, did they have the choice to? Both statesmen considered that the power of choice of micronational citizens was important, as it gives them incredible power over the nation and state. Both agree that once the micronationalist identity passes from achieved status to ascribed status, nationalism becomes untenable as it is the choice which maintains independence from the power of elders, the rich, and all other elites. The Sôgmô suggested, then, that citizenship in micronations should always be a choice: nationals are not born into citizenship but, rather, into a non-citizenship class. Once they reach the age of maturity, then they may decide to become or not to become a micronational citizen, a chance for a sort of rumspringa for micronational children. Citizenship and national identity would then become a choice, a sort of voluntary association, rather than given at birth.
Citizenship in a micronation, then, becomes far more realistic to an individual’s capabilities than it does in macronations. An individual frees oneself from the ascribed identity of a nation, whose rank in a nation is always subject to the power within the nation or state (noted before as the elite), by making it a choice to join. This choice gives the individual some leverage over the hierarchy of a nation or state: they can hold the system hostage from then on, as citizenship and nationalism become achieved. In the upcoming citizenship reforms, it shall be made law that all those born as Sandum nationals shall be restricted to the Peregrae status and shall only achieve Civilae citizenship at the age of maturity — which, too, shall be established in this law.
A good and informative article, although I would have to disagree with all macroculture being the work of the “elites”. It seems more accurate to describe most modern macrocultures as having evolved over centuries in order to accomodate a community and/or a later invention by Victorian romantics. While it is true that culture has been a way of controlling a population in the past, in today’s Western World most governments don’t actively traditional culture (in the manner of Bhutan, for example), and people have relative freedom over choice of clothing, food, etc.
The question of whether to integrate newborns into a micronation immediately after birth occurred after the brother of one of our citizens was born and began to live in Gishabruni territory. Because we was not sentient enough to be able to consent to joining Gishabrun, he is currently only a Canadian national.
That should be *actively promote traditional culture, and *he was