Empirical rights and self-determination

Just this morning I heard on the radio that just after midnight of 15 November 2011, New York City sent police in riot gear to clear Zuccotti Park of ‘Occupy Wall Street‘ protesters.

Just this morning New York City Major Michael Bloomberg got on TV and promised that the privately-owned park would reopen later today. Protesters could return after the clean up of the park, but they are no longer permitted to set up tents, bring in sleeping bags, or camp there for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (24/7).

In other words, you are free to protest in Zuccotti Park in order to exercise your First Amendment to the US Constitution right to freedom of speech, and/or the right to peaceably assemble and petition for a redress of grievances; just make sure that at the end of the day you can afford a meal at a fine New York City restaurant, and can afford to stay at such fine establishments as the Millenium Hilton Hotel. You have, in essence, a theoretical right to freedom of speech, so you can almost say anything you want, but free speech, in and of itself, is no longer a right, nor is it free (gratis).

As a practical manner, what this means is that you can protest in Zuccotti Park, but it is probably not possible to protest for long unless 1) you live with your parents; 2) they approve and support your protest and what it aims to accomplish; and 3) you live within New York City public transportation distance of Zuccotti Park. All other Americans, which have the same rights at least in theory under the US Constitution, including adults who can pay their way to a degree, are not really free to protest in Zuccotti Park for long. They have a First Amendment to the US Constitution and thus sacrosanct right to freedom of speech, but not in Zuccotti Park, or not for long. Translation: the First Amendment to the US Constitution, in a consumer society, is no longer an unalienable right of all, but a privilege of the well-to-do, or entirely dependent on personal circumstances.

The secessionist, or Fourth World form of micronationalism, runs on a logic similar to the one of New York City bureaucrats above. Under this mode of thinking, you have a right to self-determination, but only if you are well-to-do, or live under particular circumstances, and in a particular place. That by definition is not an unalienable right, however, but a fully paid for privilege.

The non-secessionist, or Fifth World form of micronationalism, which usually makes only irredentist, and/or cybernetic, and/or virtual claims, is truer to the meaning of right to self-determination. Under this mode of thinking, you do not need to be well-to-do, although it might help, nor do you need to live under particular circumstances, and in a particular place to have a right to self-determination. Moreover, this form of micronationalism also allows for small land (secessionist) claims, such as to one’s personal property. The difference here is that nobody forces a neighbour to change jurisdiction if he/she doesn’t want to, and all these (distributed, not concentrated in a single area) foreign houses can be reorganised as diaxenospitias.

It is clear that the Fifth World mode of thinking is more in tune with real human rights than the Fourth World mode of thinking; the Fifth World mode of thinking is not like an on-and-off switch in human rights terms; and even Fourth World nations or micronations can make substantial gains over time by at least adopting a partial Fifth World approach, which does allow alien cultures to survive, even thrive outside the lands of origin, while a pure Fourth World approach does not allow this without logical contradictions, and can only really succeed through the persistant use of force or violence in the long term.

Rights ultimately dependent of the use of force have little or nothing to do with true self-determination, since they are no different than rights dependent on the perspective of a legal positivist.

International organisations need to abandon the exclusive Fourth World mode of thinking, and adopt a more Fifth World mode of thinking if they wish to succeed, a mode of thinking which is more in tune with actual universal rights, but perhaps less sustaining of particular Montevideo Convention fundamentalisms. If people don’t have real rights regardless of their material status, and regardless of their social rank, or place of birth, then these so-called rights will eventually degrade into theoretical rights, or empirical privileges (only de jure rights, but de facto privileges), and there will be no such thing as universal rights (which can only exist as de jure and de facto rights), which are more dependent on universal ethical principles, and our spiritual dignity as Children of God, than on anything else corrupt human beings can muster with the laws/ways of man, which are usually counter to the laws/ways of God.


Size does not matter for non-states

Outside of the Official World, outside of the United Nations, there are essentially two different national forces:

  1. secession of territories; and
  2. secession of individuals, families, groups or organisations.

Once upon a time, I used to distinguish macronations (Fourth World) from micronations (Fifth and Sixth Worlds), because of the differences in the size of the territorial claims. Now I realise that size matters very little, and the Fourth World can still include secessionist movements as small as a town.

Territorial size really doesn’t matter, as secessionist movements usually don’t have full control of much territory to begin with. Most secessionist movements, in other words, are not de facto states, or states with limited recognition. What really matters is the size of the alternative nationalist groups, i.e. the number of active and supportive nationalists. The larger the number of active supporters, and the more influential they are or shall become.

Below follows a new definition of alternative national.

Fourth World

Territorial break-away from, or integration into existing states, regions, provinces or cities of independence movements. Includes self-determination or secessionist groups, indigenous (more or less recognised) tribes, nations, and bands, as well as ‘city-states’ that act like they are more than cities.


  • Dominion of British West Florida (member MPR)
  • Imperium of DeWaCo Estates (member MPR)
  • League of Indian Nations of North America (member MS, MPR, ISPSP)
  • Republic of Kabinda (member MPR, OEAS, UNPO)
  • Republic of Texas (member MPR)

Fifth World

Nations that have originated as, or evolved into legitimate, and/or complex entities that resemble real nations and states. Includes strong social identity or irredentist groups.


  • Principado do Ilhéu da Pontinha (member MS, MPR)
  • Principato d’Oriente (member MS, MPR, 5WHO)
  • Principato di Valldemosa (member MS, MPR, UMMOA)
  • Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem – Knights of Malta (member MS, MPR)
  • United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (member MS, MPR, 5WHO, LN, CNRS, FIBCO, OEAS, ISPSP)

Sixth World

Individual, family, group or organisation break-away from existing states to form new nations.


  • Baltic Principality (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Dharmaland (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Duchy of Carniola (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Kingdom of Amethonia (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Libera Repubblica di Alcatraz (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Mnoer Empire (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Oasi Città Aperta (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Pirate Nation (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Promolands (member SU, MPR, UMMOA)
  • Royal Kingdom of Eesha (member MPR, UMMOA)
  • Sovereign Nations Oasis (member MPR, UMMOA)

Don’t register your thingy in the wrong place

Don’t register your building, district, city or diaxenospitia in the wrong jurisdiction.

On 14 August 2009, the Micronational Professional Registry (MPR) enacted the following policy: any sovereign state recognised by the MPR that ends up on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) list of “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) — the US government’s designation for countries with ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom — shall cease to be recognised by the MPR.

Sovereign states on the CPC list that were not already recognised, shall automatically become natio non grata, and shall be treated like nations on the MPR’s Certified Terrorist Nations εν list. “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) can be viewed here:


In the past, even micronations that were connected with Pakistan (a CPC) or Pakistani nationals were refused any consideration for MPR membership. This may not sound right, and it may even sound discriminatory, but in our opinion if you claim to be part of a micronation that claims, directly or indirectly, to be independent of Pakistan, and yet you still think like a Pakistani, then you are a Pakistani. Any connection with a micronation, especially one with no strong external recognition, no strong and distinct disassociation from the country of Pakistan, is insufficient evidence of moral, religious, and/or political independence.

This MPR policy actually turns out to offer a form of protection. When Osama bin Laden was killed in a raid by US Navy SEALs, this action put Abbottabad, Pakistan on the world map of infamy. Yes, the world map of infamy:


Even schools in Abbottabad, Pakistan are now treated like terrorist havens, so while ‘guilt by association’ is not decent or even rational (it is a logical fallacy), people in Washington and elsewhere still think in that way, especially with regard to terrorism. Tell me where your town or diaxenospitia is located, or under which jurisdiction, and I’ll tell you just how much potential it has:


Register your building, district, town, or diaxenospitia in Pakistan, and it is like committing ‘citicide’.

Register your building, district, town, or diaxenospitia under the jurisdiction of the UMMOA, even though it is no pussycat of the United States, and not only you’ll be a lot more independent in running your own affairs, but this is what one Ummoagian diaxenospitia looks like on the world map, the only one that matters:


There obviously isn’t a hint of Pakistan or Pakistani here, and because of the way the MPR is run, there never will be.

A recent article of mine, “Micronations: communities without strangers“, adds additional detail about our thinking:

First Worldism is essentially the idea that societal change can be accomplished at the ballot box, but since that idea is not a realistic one, then First Worldism needs narcotic words like democracy, but it really leads to things like colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.

Fourth Worldism is essentially the idea that societal change can be accomplished by splitting from a larger state either peacefully or through violent means.

Fifth Worldism or micronationalism, is essentially the idea that societal change can be accomplished when everyone has an actual input into things. In a First or Fourth World context there are still two categories of people, representatives and represented. At least ideally, this is not true in a Fifth World context, and “[t]his is the complete opposite of life in the Official World, where people yield all their power to others, and these others are not their parents, spouses, children, relatives, or even caring friends, but complete strangers.”

It is clear that any form of Fourth Worldism is potential terrorism in the longer run, and that our clear bias is in favour of Fifth Worldism or micronationalism — which we believe provides a better solution to many different kinds of problems, but also no stench, or even potential stench of terrorism, not even by a long shot — is the best long-term philosophy the world has ever known since the dawn of man.