Creating a micronation for political power

Hi all, thanks for reading this post.
For some time now I have the idea of creating a global micronation.
I think it can help us to gain a political position.

For some time now, people have been trying to create micronations, with weak results.
Some micronations are still alive today, but many of the serious attempts have been sabotaged/destroyed by TPTB.
None of the existing micronations have a significant population as far as I know.

One important reason for creating a micronation is that you can declare yourself independent by international law.
You have to write letters to other nations in which you say that you declare yourself as a nation.
Then, in theory (so far), you can engage in politics with other nations.

Why is this important?

When a nation has established a political position, they can attend meetings at for instance the United Nations.
This could be a way to influence decision-making from the bottom up.

My plan is to create a global micronation that everyone can join.
The only goal of the nation is to protect the people on earth by putting political pressure on the other nations.
If enough people join, TPTB cannot simply dismiss us anymore.

What do you think? Would you join? Why (not)?

It sounds like a very interesting idea, and also very complex. Depending on what is clearly stated in the 'mission statement' for want of a better word, I might be interested.

Since all 'nations' are simply Corporate entities, it should be possible to create another one.

More questions than answers at this stage - how would it work, how would it have any influence, and how to retain its integrity....a long list of questions...

Hmm.. Where do you prospose to do this...

kx

Interesting idea.. But no thanks.. Have no need for nations, governments or leaders.. All they do is contribute to the misery in the world..

Hi. Thanks for the reply.
I will try to answer your questions the best I can.
My idea is still in experimental phase, so I do not have everything completely thought out.
I also want to have all the members create the rules cooperatively.

how would it work?
I will create a website where people can join.
There will also be forums where we can discuss things.
Decisions can be made by voting.
When we reach a certain number of members, say 10.000, we will send independence declarations to other nations.
We can ask TPTB to change the rules.
We can start collective actions (boycot evil companies etc.)

how would it have any influence?
It will only work by numbers.
We need a lot of members.
I think 10.000 would be a good start but we actually need millions later on.

how to retain its integrity?
By guaranteeing total transparancy.
I have a some rules that might work as well:
-Everyone is supposed to help each other the best they can.
-It is only allowed to harm someone in order to protect someone else, excluding yourself.
You are not allowed to protect yourself, because you cannot make an independent decision when you are involved. The goal is always to add value. By protecting yourself you are not adding value, but withdrawing from someone else. Therefore it is only good to find someone that recognizes your value and protects you. This is to gurantee the growth of the collective.
I'm not completely sure if it makes sense but I'm open for improvements

where do you propose to do this?
online. A location is vulnerable to all sorts of physical attacks.

I don't see physical land mentioned anywhere... is this a virtual micronation? If so they already exist with millions of members. They are called Everquest and World of Warcraft.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Ok, but those have no real world goals. It would be great if we can mobilize them somehow though.

Thanks for the information. As a concept it's an interesting idea, in practice it looks like a non starter. I'm out. But thanks anyway.

This has already been tried, and it failed badly, as the PTB unleashed their power to make sure no one tries again.

1973, Republic of Minerva. They even issued a coin, the world's first gold-on-silver coin. I still have mine, I bought it in 1973 when they were first offered. I even have a 1973 newspaper article about Minerva.

Anyone can Google Minerva, and get the whole story, but there was an American who was a bit of an entrepreneur, but was soon classed as a "tax avoider" by the USA. Of course, his "nation" was in the middle of the Pacific, far from any US authority, just a small outcropping that couldn't really be called an island, because at high tide it disappeared. But, the founder of Minerva had barges go out, full of sand, dirt, etc., and he literally built it up, out of the ocean so-to-speak.

The guy had literally found a real "place", that no one had claimed, and he got lawyers in international law to draw up his little country legally speaking too. It was to be a libertarian "paradise", no taxes, and he hoped, it could become a symbol of what can happen if the government just left people be.

BUT, "someone" out there didn't like it. A bit too uppity for a human on this prison planet to imagine they could do their own thing. Next thing you know, Fiji, hundreds of miles away decided that Minerva was "theirs"! As many know, Fiji is a nation of people that TPTB "use" as a large training camp for the world's mercenaries. Not too surprising they got in ships, and "attacked" poor little Minerva, trashing the little place back into the sea.

The message seems clear: No one is allowed to create their own nation!

So, good luck.

JR

The difference with Minerva would be that this nation is not located anywhere.
The only thing that matters is the inhabitants, and that would be us.

The countries that we live in are claiming us as their property.
If we create a new country for ourselves and we get more inhabitants than a real country, who is then more entitled to "us", the original or the new country?

reply to post by whatevername


I understand, sure, not having a real "place" to be attacked could be a strength. Certainly the story of Minerva shows that anyplace would probably suffer their same unpleasant fate.

Of course, considering the power the PTB have over the internet, they can literally shut it down for any reason, a cyber-nation might be vulnerable too. And they wouldn't have to shut down the entire internet, if they felt "threatened" at some point by some emerging "nation" (essentially of like-minded protesters), they could identify the leadership quickly, and turn it all to ashes overnight.

But international law is probably what matters most for any serious attempt at achieving "nationhood", and that probably requires a geographical location.

So then, what might be "practical" in the real world? SUBVERSION of an existing nation. In other words, if a "new" nation is desired, with various traits, then an existing nation could be selected, and then subverted into what is desired. Sort of like what happened to the USA. Of course, you would need a critical mass of subverters to accomplish the mission, but who knows? Perhaps a small island somewhere could be targeted, and over time, their government could be molded to an agenda that would one day result in a "new" nation, exactly as planned.

Fun stuff to think about. Lots of young revolutionaries out there these days! Maybe one day we'll read the story of a truly "free" nation that once was just like every other place, but a core group infiltrated, gained the natives trust, and soon had laws changed to their liking. Why not??

JR

This actually sounds more like it would be a secret society than a nation. Or micronation.

It cannot be secret since we want to engage in politics.
I think you are right that subverting an existing nation (maybe start with a city) might be a good plan.
So, where should we start?
I think building an internet community around the idea is a good first step.
We can in the meantime discuss about a good real life location to subvert.
We can also contact other existing micronations and try to get them to support us.

www.listofmicronations.com...
www.listofmicronations.com...

surely it has been done, and a very successful one at that...

Washington, D.C. formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, the District, or simply D.C., is the capital of the United States, founded on July 16, 1790. Article One of the United States Constitution provides for a federal district, distinct from the states.

en.wikipedia.org...

This sounds a bit like what I ment. Except this guy seems to be on his own:
tfsod.blogspot.com...

This one is also interesting, a micronation in UK.
www.richardbooth.demon.co.uk...


Another online micronation:
www.freewebs.com...

The Rothchilds did this in 1947.

The experiment has been successful.

reply to post by Kailassa


Why can't we do what they can?

Already heard about Sealand?
news.softpedia.com...

I would say that it is a requirement for a nation to hold land. It would be chaos if you only needed intent to form a nation. We would all be our own nations and thus there wouldn't really be any nations. That may sound like nirvana but humans are social and cooperative creatures. We need a certain level of give and take and cooperative action in order remain beyond prehistorical levels of society.

I think breaking the mentalities that are currently closing our societies in an effort to prevent an open and popular evolutionary process in governments and social structures is the goal.

We need to seize the powers of society and enforce the will of the majority, not abandon the societies.

It's all a cyclical process. We have to much freedom, it becomes anarchical, so we tighten up the regulations and then it goes too far and it becomes oppressive. It's time for us to grab the chains and pull that pendulum back towards freedom now.

We will never balance precisely on the fulcrum, but we must not ever let the mechanisms of control slip out of our reach so that we can continue to reshape our world as the many see fit rather than as the few.

reply to post by Fiberx

I would say that it is a requirement for a nation to hold land.

I think this is true in the usual sense, and yet in the truest sense of the term "nation", land is not required.

Nomadic peoples, through history are probably the easiest example of this. Sure, they usually had traditional stomping grounds, but as the American Westward expansion proved, land actually mattered most to the white man. The Native Americans, even if they had been thrown together in a relatively small reservation, a thousand miles from their traditional lands, retained their identity as a people, as a "nation" really, in the most important sense.

The Jews are another interesting group in this regard. Sure, in 1947-48 a small strip of land became "Israel", and the Jews finally had a "homeland" (of sorts). But they were already a "nation" long before 1947, regardless of where they happened to live.

SO, the "micronation" idea could still work somehow, perhaps in real terms (probably not legal terms yet), as long as a genuine "identity" of some kind could be forged. Historically, if this identity is not racial, it is "nationalistic", based on a shared location, traditions, common history and law, etc.

The "Nation" of Islam also comes to mind. Do they have a "country"? And yet, NOI members may indeed feel like they are part of "more" than just a religious group, and it matters not if they live in Detroit or Harlem.

But I would still go back to my Minerva example to consider what might happen if any new "nation" emerged that even slightly threatened the masters of this plantation. In other words, anything that could really make a "difference", would surely be squashed.

Or, like the NOI, they would get infiltrated, carefully watched, leadership bribed and blackmailed, etc. Nope, they still can't make a difference, even with thousands of convinced, even "militant" members...

JR