Welcome to From the Balcony, the official announcement media of the Republic of Theodia.
|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on November 13, 2015 at 12:50 AM||comments (0)|
The Nation-State is Dying, and Multiculturalism isn't Working. What Now?
The ideal of the nation-state -- that there should be a state for each nation, and that each nation should have a state -- has been on life-support for a while now, and its cousin, monoculturalism, is being ravaged by globalization. Affluent societies the world over are being flooded with immigrants and refugees of greatly differring physical appearances, philosophies, languages, etc. How can a monocultural state survive in such a climate? By closing off immigration? (Isolationistic) Forcing immigrants to marry natives? (An old Chinese policy. Could work, but at the cost of what liberties? Is there a better way to go about this?) Throwing those not of the majority into concentration-camps? (What do you think we are? Fascists? And why would this ever be a good idea?) What even is monoculturalism? (As in, what aspects of "culture" ought to be shared? How homogenous need a society be? What good is a near-perfectly homogenous society, anyway?) Even if you can sustain it, is it worth the effort to so vehemently resist the tides of change? Enforced monoculturalism avoids ethnic tensions by deliberately creating them.
And then we have multiculturalism, the bastard child of colonial views of race and Marxist theories of class-conflict. Multiculturalism is a hideous beast protected by political correctness and the unrealisticness of monoculturalism in the face of a heterogenous society. Multiculturalism, first-off, identifies race with culture. It uses unscientific divisions left over from the castas of the colonial era to, intentionally or not, artificially strengthen self-segregation among communities, while being convinced that it's the solution to the very segregation it encourages. Ethnic groups by default tend to prefer endogamy (marrying within their community) to exogamy (marrying outside of it). By tossing people into predefined groups and seeing them as immutable on pain of being called an undesirable term ("racist", in this case), you gradually create in the culture a view that these divisions are and must continue to be real. People think of whites vs Asians vs blacks vs whatever, and they stereotype along those lines. These stereotypes do little to ease the in-built tendency towards endogamy, and as people gradually alienate themselves from other "races", they strengthen this tendency. I'm not saying that multiculturalism has *created* this climate; it existed well-beforehand. But it has done absolutely nothing to remedy this issue, instead having stayed the course -- but worse than simply keeping on as before, multiculturalism has managed to convince itself that it is doing the opposite.
With endogamy already a basic tendency, and with society reinforcing it, you end up creating several nations in one state. These different nations, having grown up in different environments, do not have a great understanding of each other; but the obsession with identity politics prevents people of other groups from freely describing their perceptions as part of an open dialogue, because somehow their perspective as the out-group is invalid, and trying to express it makes them a racist. As time goes on, the nations grow increasingly greater and more distant, and this creates even more friction within the society. Each group feels oppressed by another, especially by the majority; and their shared history, which is theirs alone, and their focus on identity politics, allows for an endless rehashing of centuries-old conflicts. Trust within the society diminishes. Groups grow increasingly suspicious of each other, and confirmation bias gradually inflames and connects unrelated incidents.
And then, of course, you have the obsession with the majority-minority dialectic, as if it's some universal thing. And even in places where the "majority" is the minority or simply a plurality, it's still considered the "majority". What's going on here? That's not scientific in the least! And it creates an inherent feeling that somehow the "majority" is the favoured group -- something it may well be; but this needn't be the case (and, indeed, there are many, many cases where the minority ethnic group has the majority prestige). And then we have all that affirmative action crap. So the way to end racism is to deliberately create priviliges bestowed by birth? Aren't you creating a caste-system? (The answer is, 'yes', you are creating a caste-system.)
And going back to the terrible vocabulary we're using for this stuff, what is a mutt or uncommoner to do? For example: "Blacks" who are lighter-skinned being ostracized or considered not black enough by one community, and being preferred by another, but never really fitting into any; or the public's not conceiving of non-standard mixtures, such as people who are part-black and part-Amerindian. How the heck is this kind of vocab going to scale with the amount of miscegenation we've got destined in our future?
So how do we solve these problems? For starters, we need an open dialogue, and this is something we can't easily have in a culture where talking openly about ethnicity is seen as racist. Now, when I say "open", I don't mean going around and waving racial slurs and such around; I mean civilized talks for the purposes of mutual understanding, for bridging the disconnects between different groups, for helping them to understand each other -- intercultural, interfaith, etc. talks. And we need policies designed to end self-segregation, and I mean self-segregation in virtually every major demographic way. One of the first thoughts to my mind regarding this is neighbourhood ethnic, class, religion, etc. quotas; but in order to do this in a truly meaningful manner, we've got to replace the parlance of multiculturalism with scientific parlance, and we have to find ways to do this in which we don't pigeonhole people into particular nations, as multiculturalism does, or destroy people's freedom of choice, as a command-economy does. A good quota system ought to help dramatically with the issue of ethnic enclaves, and hopefully will encourage miscegenation, something which is good for a couple reasons, those being: (1) hybrid vigour (mutts are fitter than pure-breds), and (2) it blends everyone's racial histories together, thus easing a serious point of friction within ethnically heterogenous societies.
Essentially, we need to create a melting-pot society with no end-goal culture in mind -- an endlessly melting melting-pot.
What prompted me to write this piece?
In my readings, I happened upon the term "interculturalism", which strikes me as showing a good deal of promise. As is the usual fashion forme, I am yet hesitant to directly identify with it; but it seems to share a decent amount in common with me, regarding these issues. This was my major impetus for these writings, although the bad taste I'm getting in my mouth over all the racial shit going on in the USA right now certainly contributed.
A few years ago, when Theodia was joining I believe the OAM, our monocultural policies came under fire, and I wrote a piece detailing the problems with multiculturalism and the advantages of monoculturalism; but, at the time, I was not as aware of globalization to the extent that I am now, and I was very much invested into the ideal of the nation-state and self-determination of ethnic groups. Although monoculturalism is a viable strategy in monocultural societies, such as the Japan and S. Korea of today, it is a very difficult thing to work with as soon as you start having to govern over large numbers of foreign peoples, a situation which is virtually inevitable for any micronation that ever manages to gain true de facto sovereignty and desires to depend heavily upon immigration. But you can't sequester these peoples, as multiculturalism would have you do; you have to encourage them to mix, and you have to create open dialogues between them to increase understanding; it's the best means we have at the moment for keeping the gears of heterogenous societies grinding.
My apologies if this post is not particularly florid or academic in tone; it is quite late at the moment, and I was largely writing this to get thoughts out of my head. As this has now been done, I shall shortly retire. Good night.
EDIT: After re-reading this, and noting its length and potential to spark an interesting discussion, I have decided to post it for the MicroWiki community to disect, in spite of my use of vulgarity.
|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on July 15, 2013 at 11:00 PM||comments (0)|
Hello! For those of you who don't know me, I am Sweyn78, the founder of Theodia and its once-Quing. We began our journey into micronationalism 3 years ago (back in 2010) as the "Kingdom of Theodia", and remained so until now. Although I was comfortable with the country operating as a monarchy at its inception, as time went on, I began to realize that the inherent implications of monarchism were antithetical to Theodia. More, I was at a loss on how to design a decent system of succession. So, on 13-06-26, I began the process of reforming the country into a republic.
Other Theodians were mostly impartial, if mildly surprised, when I informed them of this, but several have now found new interest in the country. I began by remaking the flag as an SVG, fixing some issues I'd had with the last version. I did a lot of work during my visit to Nordia, our Minnesotan territory, to prepare our main MicroWiki article; and wrote the Theodian Kernel while visiting family in Indiana. The executive's ministries were reformed, and we'll be putting that into law once our legislative development hub is fully set up.
I'm going to go a little more in-depth about some of the parts of this transition now.
As you may or may not know, we aren't a typical republic. Our legislature operates as a repositocracy (a type of interactive democracy inspired by open source development). This of course has never been done before, so a lot of things had to be figured out from scratch. On the 12th, I drafted our second constitution, and it is quite possibly the smallest serious constitution ever written. It is essentially the bootloader of the system, since its primary purpose is to legally bootstrap the kernel and provide a light-weight govconf interpreter.
The 'kernel' then serially loads kernel modules as defined in Kernel.govconf, starting with Goals, and ProgLang (basically our version of Linux's /etc/shells). After these, GOV scripts can be loaded. GOV, for those who don't know, is a scripting language designed for managing a legis directory, which is basically a governmental version of /proc. I plan to write an interpreter for it in bash, and develop it as an open standard, perhaps on github (although I must admit I have little experience in formal software development, but I'm sure we'll figure it out; I'm comfortable in bash, anyway). So, perhaps amusingly, this means our legislation effectively has GNU coreutils as a dependency.
Since there isn't an interpreter for GOV yet, I've gone ahead and just written the non-govconf kernel modules in plain English. I've also only written the super-fallback mode in the Legis-System file, but I will be expanding the file the way I have explained in our articles on MicroWiki. We can only really use the fallback mode for now anyway because we don't have nearly enough people to run the entire bureaucracy.
For a copy of the current kernel & constitution, and an example legis release directory, and an example of GOV, head on over to Documents. CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported.
The executive branch has been redesigned from the ground up, and now features four ministries, each divided into departments. We actually even have a minister at this moment, which is rather exciting. There's not much more to it than that, though, for now. We'll be writing lots of legislation once we get the infrastructure set up, so this will become more formalized. Currently a couple ministries (Economics and Stability) are disabled due to lack of need, but the latter will find a use as Mentia evolves. Not that much of this is particularly relavent at the moment, seeing as we're operating in super-fallback mode.
Where infrastructure is concerned, we are setting up a wiki to serve as our legislative development hub, and recently rennovated our national website. Also, I have continued work on the Governcraft Minecraft server that I mentioned on Facebook a couple months ago. It will be a while before it's done, but I do have the Everglades biome about finished (I'm using TerrainControl to make the world as realistic as possible; so, environmental relativism will actually be a thing in this server). Hopefully, it will be a fairly realistic sector by the time I'm done with it, if ever.
Well, that's about it. We are a republic now. We do not look down upon monarchial micronations, though; it is a reasonable form of government for a micronation. But we felt that this transition into a republic was necessary in the long run, and so it happened.
|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on July 15, 2013 at 2:30 AM||comments (0)|
After discussions of where we would be most realistically able to settle, should we ever be able to achieve that farfetched dream, we settled upon Tinnakara, a small uninhabited island in Bangaram Atoll, located in Lakshadweep, India. It has a similar environment to what we are used to having in Florida, and we are comfortable with the nearby cultures.
We consider Tinnakara easier to settle than Amstria (Ile Amsterdam), if harder to defend. Firstly, it has an amenable environment; secondly, it is not protected the way Ile Amsterdam is by France; and thirdly, it is not ridiculously remote like Ile Amsterdam. Should the government of India express concerns with our presence, we could possibly seek vassalship or some sort of a truce, especially if Theodian culture takes a turn toward India's as Min. Naropa hopes.
Any Theodian colony on Tinnakara would be composed largely of shipping-container houses fueled by solar panels (the ones in use a couple decades from now will be notably superior to our current ones), and would seek to be as in harmony with the environment as we can manage, while pursuing infrastructural advancements.
At any rate, any Theodian settlement outside the continental USA is unlikely to be viable for a few decades, and is even then probably not much more than a pipedream ~ but it is at least an interesting one. Most likely, the vast majority of our lands will exist primarily on the Governcraft Minecraft server once it is online.
I have decided to name this new province 'Karia', formed from the second half of the island's conventional name.
|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on July 14, 2013 at 7:00 PM||comments (0)|
Today, we rennovated the national website, updating it for the first time in essentially 2 years. We have migrated it to the new Webs.com SiteBuilder 3, and designated the forums as the ideal location for discussions of diplomacy (especially given our current exec mode (super-fallback)).
We also began the process of setting up our first legislative development hub (typically just called "legis devel hub", of course). It should be fully operational sometime in the near future.
|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on October 18, 2011 at 6:30 AM||comments (0)|
On 24/Q3/2261, M. Erasmus Underwood and Kyng Sweyn I began a series of discussions about a possible merger of Theodia and Underwoodia, fuelled by interest in the first law-specific programming language, GOV. By the 25th, the first citizenship-applicacions from Underwoodia had been received by the Theodian Office of Immigracion. It is expected that a formal treaty detailing the merge will be drafted within the next few days. The plan right now is to make Underwoodia an official region of the Kyngdom of Theodia.
More details to follow as this story unfolds.
|Posted by Founder Swena of Theodia on June 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM||comments (1)|
I've heard of the intense debate over Theodia's applicacion into the O.A.M. I'd like a chance to defend our great country, Theodia against some of the arguments happening there. I'd figured that some people in our community would have a problem with what's in our constitucion. This is about its monocultural policies, right?
In the scheme of politics, there are three scales: capitalism vs. socialism, libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, and multiculturalism vs. jingoism/ethnocentrism. FDR was a socialist. Coolidge was a capitalist. Stalin was an authoritarian. Cesidio is a libertarian. Many people in the governments of modern Europe are multiculturalists. Hitler was an ethnocentrist and a jingo for Germany. Theodia is none of these extremes; on the first scale, she is centristic; on the second scale, she is also centristic; and on the third scale, she is monocultural.
Monoculturalism -- the nacion-state -- is an ideal. It is very difficult to obtain and to maintain. It was the goal of all European countries up until WWII, it is the goal of most Asian countries, it is the goal of Australia, it is the goal of many African groups, and it is the goal of Theodia. Why? Because it works. Study after study show how people raised in a monocultural society find life safer. They're more trusting. They're more altruistic. In fact, the very hormone (oxytocin) that makes people sociable, that makes people empathic, that makes people people is the same hormone that gives people ethnic biases. It is an evolucionary trait. The fact is that cohesive, monocultural groups are the groups that have survived, not only in the early times of humanity, but in the modern age. Look at the "Powder Keg of Europe", the Balkans, the south-eastern area of Europe near Greece. The part that started WWI. The Balkan states are very multicultural. Even in the 2000's, they are constantly at war. They hate each other. After WWI, they were all put under one country -- a dictatorship, at that -- and not even it could even slightly settle their differences. This is the pinnacle of multiculturalism. This is what the other European states are going for today. Take a look at the city of Malmö, Sweden. It is the third largest city in Sweden. It has over 171 ethnic groups. 30% of its populacion is not Swedish. They are not required to learn Swedish. They are not required to assimilate into Swedish culture. My question is this: if they are not Swedish, if they don't want to be Swedish, why would they be living in Sweden?! Go look-up Rosengård and you'll see what I mean. It is the most multicultural part of the city of Malmö. France has had problems with multiculturalism, too; besides the riots, a group has sought self-determinacion from France. Germany, England, the Netherlands, etc. have recently had to start less multicultural policies -- the Chancellor of Germany herself declared that "Multiculturalism has failed in Germany".
Let us now look at some monocultural states. You'll have to research Japan and some other Asian states on your own. One of them is hoping to have made its nacion into a distinct race by 2020. But let us start with Australia. Back in the 70's, Australia was having many of the multiculturalism-debates that we're having today. The difference? They didn't adopt the policies. As far as I know, Australia hasn't had the ethnic riots the other Western nacions have had. Its people aren't living in a perpetual state of fear and hate as the people in Rosengård do. It has embraced monoculturalism to some degree, and is all the more stable, happy, and prosperous for it. It requires people to learn English before immigrating. Why would the other Western nacions not require something as simple as learning the nacional language? If one is going to live in France, one should learn French. If one is going to live in Spain, one should learn Spanish. If one is going to live in Germany, one should learn German. It is lunacy that these such nacions would allow, continue, and foster these multicultural policies. They aren't effective -- they're self-destructive. Furthermore, it's anti-western; the west has long been the foremost advocate of monoculturalism (the only real exception has been the post WWII era).
It's not that ethnic groups are inherently evil. It's not that some are necessarily better than others. It's that having more than one nacion under one state is unstable and a disunifier. People need their countries to be whole. Do you support the right to self-determinacion of nacions? Then you support monoculturalism, as this is a policy designed to give monocultural states to ethnic groups -- one state, one nacion. Whereas multiculturalism and jingoism are the extremes, monoculturalism is the middle path. This is Theodia: a monocultural nacion. The old ideal of the "nacion-state". She is stable. Her people are happy and co-operative. But we are not racists (someone who is biased towards or against a race). We are not Hitlers. Hell, my best friend is a Latino. We are not saying that Theodians and other Germanic peoples are the "Master Race"; we are simply stating that every country should represent one ethnic group and only one. There should be a country for Germans. There should be a country for the French. There should be a country for Swedes. The moment one goes to try and mix these things up is the moment that one loses the cohesiveness, the effectiveness, and the co-operacion of a nacion-state and descends into the chaotic fires of multiculturalism. So, yes: we are a monocultural micronacion, and we are proud of it.
~Kyng Sweyn B. Schroeder