You are on page 1of 5

REPLY TO PRIME MINISTER MARK MEEHAN OF

THE REPUBLIC OF NEMKHAVIA


by Charles I of Eleytheria

[Imperial Publishing Group]


Dear Mr. Meehan,

You do most certainly raise some interesting points which I would like to
address in the following reply. You are welcome to issue a further response if you
feel inclined to do so. Anyhow, let’s not waste time with formalities and continue
with my analysis of your text which does indeed present a challenge. Kudos, my
dear sir!

“Needless to say, I believe that this statement is completely false. I believe


that Charles is mistaking real Communism for the fake, baseless ideology that
is used by many macronational states. In these states, Communist is a
moniker, with no real meaning. Communism in itself is rule by the people en-
masse, thus I must protest this. During the era of Communist Nemkhavia,
freedoms were at their height and every single person was given a voice in
debate. Our Government was accountable to the people without any barriers
put in place by the state. I fail to see how this could be taken as ‘fascist’.”

Ah, the Michael Jackson argument. “If I call myself Michael Jackson, would you
believe me that I am Michael Jackson?” Of course, any nation could call itself
communist. My definition of communism originates from the works of Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, the most of which, as may surprise you, I have read. By those
definitions, a communist society is in short a ‘classless society where the views of
the collective are supreme to those of individuals’.

Of course, as a micronation you have the advantage, that a direct democratic


system as it seems to be in existence within your Republic does actually work, as
opposed to the application of a direct democratic system in macronational
environments. The freedom that appears to exist in Nemkhavia however can be
traced back to the libertarian system which is in use. The circumstance that you
possess a socialist economy fails to relate to this freedom.

“In my eleven months in micronationalism, the topic of Communism has


been dissected time and again, but I believe it has been done largely by people
who do not understand it, or are new to the community and applying
macronational situations to micronational. Communists have had to defend
themselves against these people, even though Communist nations in our
community are blatantly among the most successful.”

Rest assured, Mr. Meehan, that I do understand Communism. I do not, as I have


previously explained, equate communism to cruelty, as many others do. I believe it
is a fine principle, but simultaneously a delusional utopia which will never be
achieved by mankind unless it overcomes its principal possessive thinking. And,
genetically speaking, the odds of that are far beyond those of winning the national
lottery.

And, of course, Communist micronations are successful, but equally as


successful as any other micronations, and why? Because they are almost identical.
Your micronation is quite unique I agree, but micronations such as Erusia are
similarly Authoritarian, which according to the Erusian political compass cannot be
objected to. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism both work.

The only things that do not work are fascism and anarchy. And because of the
fact that Communist micronations have it easier, they do not become fascist. Which
is the sole reason for their success.
“The economic benefits of the Communist system worked wonderfully in
Nemkhavia during its time under Communism. Under the watchful eye of the
state and the masterful knowledge of some of our highest minds, we
prospered. Everyone was given a share of the state, under the protection of the
League of Communists and the Government. On the scale at which we operate,
the Communist system worked quite well.”

I do believe you, but you mistake your reason for relative success to be
communism. The real reason is because in most micronational cases, economic
failure is impossible. Why? Well, unless you tax people, or have a common trust
which donations can be made to, your capital is equal to zero. You may produce
flags or other novelty items from your monthly income.

Mostly the sale value of these items is equal to the production value though. If
not, you may make some insignificant profit. But after all, you will never have great
national debt and so you are bound to succeed. You could have a capitalist,
communist or even a non-existant economy, and there would be no difference
whatsoever.

“In my opinion, I think this is the most short sighted analysis of


Communism that I have seen in my time as a micronationalist. I find it odd that
Charles refers to revolutionary ideals ‘and related nonsense’. It is in no way
similar to the Imperialist culture, as it rightly glorifies the people as whole,
instead of one or two people.”

Then, strictly speaking, every single citizen of Nemkhavia should have the title
Premier. Do they? I strongly doubt it. Glory belongs to those who have achieved
something, not the entire populace. A little child of 6 years does not deserve the
same respect as a 70-year-old intellectual who helped form a nation. Give credit
only where credit is due.

“‘Ranks and abbreviations’, as he so puts them, were earned in


Communist Nemkhavia. In an imperialist culture, they are handed out for
reason. Communists do, Imperialist get rewarded for not doing. That is the
close difference.”

Oh, so they are earned? Wait a minute, didn’t you just say the exact opposite?
If they are earned, I am afraid I have to say that your point is absolute nonsense. If
Communists, as you say, get rewarded for what they do instead of what they don’t
do, then they get rewarded by merit, don’t they? Same thing in an Imperialist
system. That, Mr. Meehan, is why they call it Meritocracy. It means “Rule of the
Meritorious”.

And nothing else is happening in Eleytheria. I myself got my title for founding
our nation. All others got their titles for various degrees of involvement in the
creation of our nation and its government today. I did not simply award titles to my
friends, I awarded titles to those who helped, who were meritorious so to say.

I find it disturbing that you insist that I have no understanding of communism,


while at the same time displaying a same level of lacking knowledge regarding
Imperialism, since you did not actually refute my claims here, you supported them,
by bringing up a point I already had: The common basis of meritocracy.
“Unfortunately, I have to disagree. It is very similar to every other piece of
criticism ever given of Communism. Of course, I respect Charles’ point of view,
as I would anyone. It is unfortunate that he has joined ranks with the other
critics of Communism that have stepped forward. People like this do not
criticize the ideology out of some wish for it to disappear; it is a simple act to
attempt to gain some popularity for a young nation.”

Ah, but you see, in this, your reply, you do not attempt to refute my claims of
the ineffectiveness of communism in micronationalism at all. And that is where it
differs: I don’t just state that it doesn’t work, I much rather state that it is useless in
micronational terms for the simple lack of economies in most micronations.

Furthermore, I do not criticize Communism in order to gain popularity. That


would be daft, since I am alienating communists and thus decreasing the range of
allies I might have. No, I am just stating my opinion in hopes for an intellectual
debate. Mission accomplished.

“I would also like to point out the fact that the Empire, over which Charles I
reigns, is by no means a free Empire.”

I would be most grateful if you could point me towards the place where I stated
that it was. I will immediately correct this because I do not and would not dare to
call the Empire of Eleytheria fully free. That would be lying and, as you will notice
should you choose to get to know me better, I am a direct and honest person.

“There is a list of religions available on their page that are banned. Banned
religions? That seems like one of the biggest attacks on freedom I have ever seen in
my time in the community. I find it incredible that Charles dares to criticize any
ideology, when he controls a blatantly authoritarian nation.”

You imply that my freedom of speech should be impeded because I lead an


authoritarian nation? That seems like one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy I
have ever seen in my time of authoring written correspondence. If you would forbid
me to criticize freely you would violate your own principles. How excitingly
fallacious.

And in response to your criticism of my banning of these cults, may I ask you:
Do you support Muslim honor murders? The casting of malevolent spells, regardless
of whether they do or do not work? Purported visions of certain doom? Human
rights abuses within the Church of the Latter-Day Saints and Scientology? The Moon
Sect?

Agreed, Hinduism might not be a cult, but the reason for the banning is that we
are a principially Christian country and Hinduism violates the commandment “Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven images” Christianity is a part of our culture
and all citizenships in the Empire are voluntary. If somebody does not agree with
our Law, they will not be forced to join. Our internal matters are just that, and I find
it somewhat rude to simply denounce our Culture and Religion. We do not criticize
Nemkhavia’s internal politics either, or do we?

“In my time as the elected leader of Communist Nemkhavia, it flourished


in both culture and economics. I respect the criticism of Charles I. This is my
reply, may the Community and Charles I make of it what they will.”
Well, then I make of it that it is a sophisticated reply to my essay and I most
certainly thank you for it. Do not hesitate to reply once again. Until then:

Yours truly,

HIM Charles I

You might also like