Micronational survey reveals more about societal trends than actual micronations

A recent survey, despite the difficulties we encountered in completing it because of disruptive pseudomicronationalists, has provided some interesting information.

The overwhelming majority of self-professed micronationalists are males (97%).

There are micronationalists in every age group, but a significant majority of micronationalists are between the ages of 14 and 23 (65%). This means most micronationalists are in the coming-of-age group. In a world left without enduring values, and left with even less socio-economic certainties, youth micronationalism seems to be providing an outlet for youth energy once prominently occupied by apprenticeship training, seminary preparation, military service, and/or active participation in sports, and these are also activities of predominately male focus. Whether the majority of self-professed micronationalists from this age group will still be active micronationalists in a decade or so, remains to be seen.

Most micronationalists (65%) do not believe the word micronation is a demeaning word.

In reality most people around the world, of all age groups, don’t have a high opinion of the word micronation. This is why some prefer more neutral words and endonyms like Fifth and Sixth World nations. Moreover, the word micronation, besides being a demeaning word and an exonym, is also a deceptive word, and the survey only provides further evidence of this. A significant portion (22%) of the responses also places a secessionist town, city, state, province or region within the field of micronationalism, but this is not an entirely correct idea. In reality, even small secessionist towns are not micronational, and to define such entities as macronational is also deceptive.

Outside of the Official World, there are essentially two kinds of entities: territorial and non-territorial entities.

Fourth World entities are territorial entities, and they can be as big as the Republic of Texas, and as small as the Principality of Filettino. The size of the territorial claim really doesn’t matter, just as size doesn’t matter with real sovereign states. What matters is that with Fourth World entities, which include many entities often inappropriately called micronations, territory is an inseparable issue to nationhood. These entities are also secessionist, and the land often matters even more than the people on the land.

In contrast, some Fifth World entities actually span more than one of the earth’s regions or continents with their largely irredentist claims (they are more tied to Planet Earth, than to a single island or continental mass), and with younger Sixth World entities land is not even an issue, or it is a mere artifice, and nationhood is truly the only issue.

A minority of responses (11%) show that there are some who actually believe that a micronation is a nation with a population of one, so I guess the concept of egonation and pseudomicronationalist is quite a matter of fact.

A large minority of responses (22%), however, seem to have a better understanding of what is fact and fiction, and rightly believe that a micronation is a nation with a population larger than that of a family. There are also minorities of micronationalists intelligent enough to summon the possibility that micronations can also be born out of beefed-up non-profit organisations, micronationalist-friendly international organisations, and possibly from for profit organisations as well.

The survey also used a bellwether micronation, the United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (UMMOA), for honest reasons of personal curiosity, and to possibly sight future trends.

Few responses (6%) seem to suggest the UMMOA is a quasi-state. A good portion of the responses (13%) seem aware that the UMMOA runs its own Internet. And a minority of responses (28%) seem to admit that the UMMOA is at least a micronation.

If one considers not the number of responses among many responses (a few questions allowed for multiple answers), but the number of responses in relation to the actual number of survey participants, then about one in six people or 16% believe the UMMOA is a quasi-state; about a third of people or 32% seem aware that the UMMOA runs its own Internet; and a significant majority, about seven in ten, or 71%, seem aware that the UMMOA is at least a micronation.

These statistics are not very different from what one would expect out of a similar survey of any other kind of non-micronationalist population, so the results don’t seem to lack in realism.


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)

Overwhelming evidence of (alien) citizenship

What is the easiest way to show anyone around the world, outside of the United States, that you are a citizen of the United States?

Well, that is pretty obvious to any educated person. The easiest way to show anyone you are a US citizen is to show your valid, unexpired, US Passport.

This is the most common document which proves US citizenship, but it is not the only one. According to some of the most authoritative sources, the following primary documents establish both US citizenship and identity. An individual needs to provide only one of the following documents to meet the documentation requirement:

  • A United States passport, or
  • A Certificate of Naturalization (DHS Form N-550 or N-570), or
  • A Certificate of Citizenship (DHS Form N-560 or Form N-561).

Any of the three documents above is sufficient to prove one’s citizenship.

Question: how do you prove you are the citizen of some alternative or unrecognised country? Good question, but the proof here does not simply lie in the alternative country’s passport. No foreign official will have to accept that as evidence of citizenship, because that becomes evidence of citizenship only in the clear-cut case of recognised countries. This is true even if the country is recognised by most countries, but not by the specific country you want a visa from. Some countries will deny visas if the traveler’s passport shows evidence of citizenship or travel to a country which is not recognised by that country.

Yet I was able to find a loophole in a system which treats alternative or unrecognised countries like the bubonic plague, like blacks in the US were treated prior to the Civil War.

The loophole is not in international law, which is fairly vague or silent on this subject. The loophole was provided by a perfectly legitimate Italian law, the “Decree of the President of the Republic of 28 December 2000, No. 445”, often abbreviated in Italian legalise as “D.P.R. n. 445/2000”. Article 46 of this Decree allows all kinds of substitute declarations, including a “Declaration in lieu of Certification of Citizenship”, which you can actually print yourself with the help of some knowledge of Italian, and some Internet web forms, so long you are truthful and accurate to the best of your knowledge. In fact, you don’t even need an affidavit or a notary public to essentially self-print one of these substitute declarations, and Italian officials are forced to accept them in lieu of the actual documents normally used.

So below is a link to probably the world’s first bona fide United Micronations Multi-Oceanic Archipelago (UMMOA) Certificate of Citizenship, which is valid, by the way, under Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under the Montevideo Convention, under Italian law, and even under UMMOA law:

This document was sent along with a perfectly intelligible and diplomatic letter of explanation to the President of Italy, the Hon. Giorgio Napolitano, in his native Italian, and tracking data for the Express Mail International package shows that the President of Italy received the letter on 21 December 2010, but so far he has not apparently answered the letter.

Perhaps he may never answer, acknowledging the perfect legality of the document under Italian law, but I stand proud that the document is indeed legal, and according to multiple sources!