Reflections on the Republic

[Owen Edwards]

My friends,

Whilst I am sure you all could do without my pontificating about politics, and would rather I got back to reforming Talossa’s culture in line with American comedies of the late 70s and early 80s (a golden era, to be sure), I fear I must pompously ramble a little.

I have, falteringly, educated myself as to the reality of the Republic recently. I previously held a loose idea of the issues involved and held a general hope for pan-Talossan relations. I now have a clearer understanding of the problems facing even the most basic steps towards friendship.

Said understanding is still limited, however, so I beg forgiveness for any mistakes I make in the following or any offence unintentionally caused. I have also read some of the threads over at Witt X – I hope nobody there minds.

Let’s start chronologically, well, in a general sense, anyway. Prepare for sweeping assertions, not intended to oversimplify but rather to pare the matter down to its core.

The Republic, I would posit, was founded on two main principles: that it was righteous to seek to free Talossa from Ben Madison, and that Talossanity was something quite independent of Ben Madison.

They created a safe refuge whilst the Madness of King Robert raged, and provided a shining example to others. Eventually, a pan-Kingdom coalition forced Robert I from the throne, but problems continued as his infant nephew became King. The Kingdom was still recovering from a dark period, and it took time, and the boy’s Cestour mother, to help free us from the last vestiges of the Madness.

The Republic, meanwhile, thrived, after a fashion. Many new citizens, relatively unaware of the particular circumstances surrounding their nation’s foundation, joined, espousing sincere republican convictions.

Over time, unity has been discussed, proper relations effectively denied by folk on both sides, and we have now got to a major junction in the history of Talossa.

The Schiva Doctrine, and its concomitant subtext and associate lacunae, contain a number of “unlikely” demands upon the Kingdom before genuine pan-Talossan relations can resume: things like recognizing Republican legitimacy and Talossanity, scrapping the OrgLaw, and accepting the actions of the Founders as heroic.

Let me begin at the end. Yes, we SHOULD welcome the Founders back as returning heroes! They should be garlanded, and where they do not despise it, knighted, given aristocratic titles, baked cakes! But that does not absolve the Founders from matters where they do carry guilt: absconding to the Republic with historic domain names and disbarring Royalists from using their Internet home.

When Ben Madison got up to those sort of tricks, the future Republicans rightly denounced him as a dictator – but perhaps the Nixon Doctrine of “it’s legal when we do it” gives the removal of Talossa.com and Witt X from the Kingdom a free ride?

As for Republic Talossanity – define Talossanity. Certainly our shared language, desire for a genuine political method and the existence of a real sense of national unity mark the Republic out as genuinely Talossan. But they dismiss other key facets of Talossa – joy in pretty colours, titles and the general splendour of it all, general pomposity, an appreciation for the long traditions of constitutional monarchy, etc. But fine – Diff’rent Strokes and all. Yet they trash these qualities in the Kingdom, and trash those involved – which seems thoroughly unTalossan, and unfair.

Legitimacy? I think that there is a certain Talossan character to those Republicans espousing a genuinely Republican system, without a King, and would certainly enjoy continuing friendship with such an entity. But I think the matter of a legitimate successor is settled in favour of those who prised the Kingdom from Madison’s cold, live hands. There can be two Talossas, but you must define what you expect by recognition of legitimacy.

As for scrapping the OrgLaw – there’s a process. It’s called amending it. It works. We passed six Amendments this past election, and others are planned. It’s organic, you see. It’s living and well.

I implore those Republicans who desire unity under a monarch to return posthaste. To quote Jon Stewart: “We need you on our side. [The pay’s] not good…but you can sleep at night.” Do not allow open attempts at ending close relations to isolate you from your kin. You are our heroes, and we need you more than ever in the golden age dawning right now.

God save the King!

OCE
Kensington
London
30th January 2008

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Well written! It's good to see that citizens are taking the time and effort to research the history and happenings of the last half-decade.

It is of my opinion that if The Schiva Doctrine IS adopted, it will be the death knell for any future talk of reunification, combining, conjoining, or any relations other than a cordial handshake and polite conversation.

That will make life for everyone pretty easy, then.

[Xhorxh Asmour]

Well said, S:reu Edwards!

A crucial point of disagreement that keeps some people in the Republic from joining the Kingdom is, Ben taught them damn well to hate the image of a king.
Others were never part of the Kingdom. Therefore, they will only accept a Republican kind of government.
(Also, they are strongly against the open vote. You already know my opinion about this issue.)

If they choose to hold on to their political beliefs (and I can't blame them), I don't see any possibility of them joining the Kingdom, unless they would get rid of their hate, join and try to change things democratically from inside. To me, that would be perfectly acceptable. But demanding changes in our OrgLaw and system of government as a sine qua non condition to join is simply out of question.

But we all, Kingdomers and Republicans, even going separate ways, can live in peace and work together on joint projects for the common good of all Talossans. Without hard feelings. Without hate.

[Owen Edwards]

As long as open routes of communication remain in place and are encouraged.

[Owen Edwards]

I also think a crucial misunderstaning some Republicans have is that returning would be some kind of demeaning surrender at Dictator Woolley's steel-capped feet.

But respect and admiration and a genuine willingness to consider further reform are entirely different from scrapping the entire system because one man, in a unique position, managed to circumvent it.

[Deleted]

Great write Owen!

[Max Sklar]

To me it´s as if the Cuban revolutionaries hadn´t actualy suceeded in overthrowing and reforming Fulgencio Batista´s government, but, claimed they did, and wrote laws for a nation that they had no basis to found, rightious cause or no. For example, its as if because they dont like the way Habana is run they claim, in revolutionary rightiousnes that they run it, but that wouldn´t change the fact that Batista in reality still was sitting in power, and nothing would change it until his power was confronted head on.
The Republic doesnt have to agree with the Talossans of the kingdom who fought king Ben head on, but they have to admit that thier revolution is not a real revoultion (in history, all revolutions have confronted power head on, otherwise it is an exodus or exile) it is just that, an exile, a refounding, but, because in Talossa no lives are at stake, they can claim that what happened was a reovlution. To me as exiles they are valid, and we should deal with them as that. Exiles who were wronged and who, as we are a free and democratic nation we respect , and recognize as fellow patriots because o our cultural similarities. No people should be defined by thier system of government, or eventhier opinions. That makes us brothers.

[D. N. Vercáriâ]

xhorxh said:

Well said, S:reu Edwards!

A crucial point of disagreement that keeps some people in the Republic from joining the Kingdom is, Ben taught them damn well to hate the image of a king.
Others were never part of the Kingdom. Therefore, they will only accept a Republican kind of government.
(Also, they are strongly against the open vote. You already know my opinion about this issue.)

If they choose to hold on to their political beliefs (and I can't blame them), I don't see any possibility of them joining the Kingdom, unless they would get rid of their hate, join and try to change things democratically from inside. To me, that would be perfectly acceptable. But demanding changes in our OrgLaw and system of government as a sine qua non condition to join is simply out of question.

But we all, Kingdomers and Republicans, even going separate ways, can live in peace and work together on joint projects for the common good of all Talossans. Without hard feelings. Without hate.

First of all, I don't hate you guys. You're having fun your way, and that's fine with me. In fact I'm happy to see that you're really having fun in your version of Talossa.

But then, yes, I prefer the Republican version of Talossa. Not because I wouldn't agree that John Woolley is a good, honorable man, but because I don't like monarchy, not even as a game.

Third, practically I and some of my friends couldn't join your Talossa even if we wanted it badly - we are citizens of more than just one nationette, even co-founders of these nationettes. As far as I understand your laws these rule out triple nationalities like, for instance, German - Talossan - Textoran. Oh, and I'm also a citizen and co-founder of San Pedro de Nada, and nonetheless still a (Republican) Talossan at heart.

But again, I don't hate you guys for doing your things your way. Even more so, I believe it would be utterly silly to waste our precious time on model-railway-scale warmongering.

So I hope that we all can coexist in peace, which of course may include that you'll eventually recognise our independence, officially, in the long run.

[Dréu Gavárþic'h]

Just as a point. I have recently learned that Witt X and Talossa.com actually did belong to the soon-to-be Republicans during the revolution, so nothing illegal was committed.

Nice to see you on witt again max!

Otherwise, very nice write Owen, though I disagree on a few things, I think it's wonderful!

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

owenfsf said:

A speech

Very well said, indeed.

vercaria said:

But again, I don't hate you guys for doing your things your way. Even more so, I believe it would be utterly silly to waste our precious time on model-railway-scale warmongering.

So I hope that we all can coexist in peace, which of course may include that you'll eventually recognise our independence, officially, in the long run.

More excellent sentiments. However, I don't see how independence can be recognized, at least not in the near future. Part of that independence would presumably mean "recognizing" the taking of several provinces, one of which I happen to be representing as Senator. Although I understand you guys are shuffling some provinces together, with the consolidation of the empty Maritiimi into Port Maxhestic and Maricopa... perhaps this is progress.

alexandreu said:

Just as a point. I have recently learned that Witt X and Talossa.com actually did belong to the soon-to-be Republicans during the revolution, so nothing illegal was committed.

I know; I read the same thread in the Republic where they said that. But perhaps you were also here when S:da Schiva attempted to make the same argument, and I pointed out that such "property" as talossa.com and Witt X were held in trust for Talossa by the "owners" as public services, so that even if there was no crime committed, it was nonetheless quite unethical. The analogy I drew, as I recall, was to imagine the following scenario:
In a small town, a man is elected mayor. To help his people, he builds a cobblestone main road through the town. He owns the land the road is on, and he built it. But he built it as mayor, and calls it the "town's road." He encourages people to use the road, and soon it is almost the exclusive means of transportation.
One day, the man decides he wants to found a new town. So he kicks everyone off the road except for his buddies and declares that some of the town's houses are actually theirs. Everyone who had grown used to using the road, and had trusted that man, has been screwed. Legal? Sure (well, the rescinding of the road, if not the "secession"). But ethical? Certainly not.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

D. N. Vercáriâ -

I sincerly doubt any Citizen of the Kingdom has hatred for the republicans.

A lot of us are new(er) here (like myself) and weren't here during the Madness of King Ben. So we view what happened to cause the schism almost as ancient history. Our reasoning and logic is skewed by that.

The more I read, the more I understand why there are insurmountable differences between the groups. I've also learned that it's not gonna change. I think some of my fellow citizens need to learn that, also.

I do hope you visit often, and contribute here as much as you feel comfortable.

Just leave your War Trains at home, ok?

[Owen Edwards]

Dieter, thanks your sentiments.

I agree that not all Republicans will find a return here appetizing; that's fine, as discussed. I don't know what sort of meaningful recognition of independance there can be, both for Alex's reasons and because because we have to outline the issue of legitimacy.

Also, thankyou to Alexander for expanding the WittX/Talossa.com issue. The very symbolism involved in both taking the eponymous domain name and in barring monarchists is a grievous issue in and of itself, as well.

[Deleted]

agbdavis said:

owenfsf said:

A speech

Very well said, indeed.

More excellent sentiments. However, I don't see how independence can be recognized, at least not in the near future. Part of that independence would presumably mean "recognizing" the taking of several provinces, one of which I happen to be representing as Senator. Although I understand you guys are shuffling some provinces together, with the consolidation of the empty Maritiimi into Port Maxhestic and Maricopa... perhaps this is progress.

alexandreu said:

Just as a point. I have recently learned that Witt X and Talossa.com actually did belong to the soon-to-be Republicans during the revolution, so nothing illegal was committed.

I know; I read the same thread in the Republic where they said that. But perhaps you were also here when S:da Schiva attempted to make the same argument, and I pointed out that such "property" as talossa.com and Witt X were held in trust for Talossa by the "owners" as public services, so that even if there was no crime committed, it was nonetheless quite unethical. The analogy I drew, as I recall, was to imagine the following scenario:
In a small town, a man is elected mayor. To help his people, he builds a cobblestone main road through the town. He owns the land the road is on, and he built it. But he built it as mayor, and calls it the "town's road." He encourages people to use the road, and soon it is almost the exclusive means of transportation.
One day, the man decides he wants to found a new town. So he kicks everyone off the road except for his buddies and declares that some of the town's houses are actually theirs. Everyone who had grown used to using the road, and had trusted that man, has been screwed. Legal? Sure (well, the rescinding of the road, if not the "secession"). But ethical? Certainly not.

S:reu Davis, a real life example of this could be Hildale, Utah. Although comparing this to the Republic may very well be a bit of a stretch, and I am in no way calling the Republic a sect of radical right Mormons, but the idea of being kicked out of something simply because you do not agree with them and taking what is otherwise public as private is being shared.

[Owen Edwards]

I just browsed Witt X, and saw an intriguing claim that the Kingdom is suffering a decline in membership, with the implication that the Kingdom as a whole is in decline. Can anyone else enlighten me on this? Is anyone else even out there? I mean, I WAS the only one to vote in the election.

One other issue to note is that several Republicans are ineligible by immigration law to become Kingdom citizens, due to micronation membership.

That's fine. As discussed, reunion, true reunion, isn't a real aim or desire, for a number of reasons. But I think an area where the Republic and the Kingdom can come to common understanding, though not agreement, is in how each treats micronations.

The Kingdom, considering itself a sincere and full national identity for those involved, considers micronations, amongst other things (and there are a few issues involved), a distraction from ones responsibilities to the Kingdom. If you are a member of Greater Welpongia, and join the Kingdom, and become a member of the Ziu - and then Welpongia gets stressy, condemns the Kingdom, and demands its member leave; or Welpongia uses the opportunity to gather information illicitly; then the Kingdom is left vulnerable.

Furthermore, Talossa, the Kingdom that is, considers itself a real nation; sure, practical territorial extent is each of our bedrooms, but a nation is not its earth alone. We are more interested in becoming affiliated with extranational groups and forums, developing our national culture, and creating a truly functional nation within its context.

Why, then, would we want to improve relations with Welpongia, who consist of 5 guys and a dog going on power trips (insert jibe from someone about the dictator Woolley's penchant for crushing his enemies mercilessly - I know, he's a real Ben Madison, that John Woolley, and I'm glad there's people making sure their fellow Republicans know that).

[EM Vürinalt]

owenfsf said:

I just browsed Witt X, and saw an intriguing claim that the Kingdom is suffering a decline in membership, with the implication that the Kingdom as a whole is in decline. Can anyone else enlighten me on this? Is anyone else even out there? I mean, I WAS the only one to vote in the election.

One other issue to note is that several Republicans are ineligible by immigration law to become Kingdom citizens, due to micronation membership.

That's fine. As discussed, reunion, true reunion, isn't a real aim or desire, for a number of reasons. But I think an area where the Republic and the Kingdom can come to common understanding, though not agreement, is in how each treats micronations.

The Kingdom, considering itself a sincere and full national identity for those involved, considers micronations, amongst other things (and there are a few issues involved), a distraction from ones responsibilities to the Kingdom. If you are a member of Greater Welpongia, and join the Kingdom, and become a member of the Ziu - and then Welpongia gets stressy, condemns the Kingdom, and demands its member leave; or Welpongia uses the opportunity to gather information illicitly; then the Kingdom is left vulnerable.

Furthermore, Talossa, the Kingdom that is, considers itself a real nation; sure, practical territorial extent is each of our bedrooms, but a nation is not its earth alone. We are more interested in becoming affiliated with extranational groups and forums, developing our national culture, and creating a truly functional nation within its context.

Why, then, would we want to improve relations with Welpongia, who consist of 5 guys and a dog going on power trips (insert jibe from someone about the dictator Woolley's penchant for crushing his enemies mercilessly - I know, he's a real Ben Madison, that John Woolley, and I'm glad there's people making sure their fellow Republicans know that).

First off, I must say this is a very interesting discussion indeed.

I think we can look at history (and not just Talossan) to get a complete understanding of the Republic.

I think the example that best fits this is the French Revolution- A monarch that was wasting away national funds, taking rights from the people, and ruling with imperium over the entire country. After years and years of this torment, the people rebelled and set up the Republic of France- dissolving all fragments of the Kingdom of France and embracing republicansism (allbeit after a long amount of time until after Napoleon was exiled).

Now, that's a true revolution. If we call the Republic of Talossa a revolution against the Kingdom, it was largly unsuccessful, as they did not overthrow and replace anything at all. Now, it was still partially successful, specifically in the ideals (and propaganda) of the newly formed Republic.

Again, when looking at history, when a country's peoples are being persecuted by an authoritarian dictator (that they hate), they are likely to be unsupportive of any leader who takes that person's spot after they step down, or in worse case, executed.

This provides a logical explination for the allegations against King John, even though he is exact opposite of a tyrannical authoritarian monarch.

I'm not going to pull a T.O. on you, but King John- he's my King.