Julian Szembek-Michelloti pisze: ↑29 lip 2026, 08:51
Greetings to the Kingdom of Dreamland, from the Anglophone community. Forgive me for using English, my Polish isn't good enough for me to hold a conversation within the language.
I came across a
paper a while back from the University of Bialenia discussing the semi-recent situation in Elderland (and what the author dubbed as the "McMelkorian Reaction"), describing what one may dub a "reactionary" response to newcomers seeking to revitalize what seems to be a long-dead micronation against Simon McMelkor, who considered Elderland to be his own intellectual property. (I do want to note for the reader's sake that a similar situation has occurred in Anglophony in the past year or so, though unlike the Elderland situation, it began with a supposed coup and came to involve DMCA takedowns and a rival emperor being coronated; for more information on that conflict, read
here.)
With regards to the paper, I fail to see why it shouldn't be labeled as I have described it — a form of reactionism against newcomers, if that's the proper terminology — instead of slapping someone's name on it and calling it a day. I could be mistaken in citing this, but Erik von Hohenburg (writing in a
thesis he wrote at the university here at Dreamland some years back) described a form of "micronational solipsism", which I quote here now:
Solipsyzm w uproszczonej formie i w kontekście mikronacyjnym można byłoby zdefiniować
jako naturalne w naszej sytuacji dążenie jednostki do wymuszenia na całej społeczności
mikronautów uznania swojej subiektywnej wizji w sferach działalności mikronacji, których nie
da się w sposób oczywisty udowodnić...
[In a simplified form and within the context of micronationalism, solipsism could be defined as an individual's natural drive—given our circumstances—to compel the entire community of micronationalists to accept their subjective vision regarding aspects of micronational activity that cannot be objectively proven...]
Would this description of a "McMelkorian Reaction", or at least its association with McMelkor, thus fit under the concept of solipsism as von Hohenburg described it? To associate someone's name with micronational reactionism (or irredentism, or whatever the term is) would seem IMO to do so.
Let me post a refined version of my message to you I have previously sent.
There is one important misunderstanding that I would like to address. At no point have I ever claimed that Elderland constitutes my intellectual property. Such a claim would be unfounded in two distinct respects.
First, Elderland is no more my property than it is the property of any other Elderlander. I was not even its founder, and I served as its official Head of State only for a relatively brief period.
Second, such a claim would be fundamentally incompatible with the very nature of micronationalism. To declare a micronation the property of a single individual would implicitly deprive it of its micronational character. Just as political simulation games are not regarded as micronations within the Polish Microworld—we once witnessed a particularly interesting case in which players from eRepublik, a political simulation game, attempted to establish diplomatic relations with us—a website owned by one individual could not itself constitute a micronation. If Elderland can be said to belong to anyone, it belongs collectively to its citizens rather than to any single person.
This, however, was never the case.
The issue was that the proclaimed "revival" of the state by individuals who had never previously been associated with it—an initiative apparently intended to appropriate the identity, reputation, and historical legacy of one of the oldest Polish micronations, together with its place on the shared map—amounts, in my view, to the misappropriation of the national and cultural identity, as well as the historical heritage, of the Elderlandic community. As matters presently stand—and this is merely an incidental factual circumstance rather than the basis of my argument—I happen to be the only remaining representative of that historical community.
It should also be noted that the post in question did not specify the legal framework within which I intended to pursue any potential claims. Such claims might have been based on Elderlandic law, or they might equally have been grounded in principles of micronational international law. Indeed, shortly thereafter I engaged in discussions with representatives of other Polish micronations, through diplomatic channels, concerning the possibility of adopting an international convention regulating the conditions under which inactive micronations might legitimately be revived.
Nor was my position in any way directed against newcomers to the Microworld, despite repeated attempts by my critics to portray it as such. In fact, the principal initiators of the initiative in question are not newcomers at all; to the best of my knowledge, many of them have been active within the Polish Microworld for approximately a decade. Opposing new participants as such would be self-defeating. Without a steady influx of new people, the Microworld will inevitably decline.
My objection concerns a single, specific principle: I do not believe that a micronation may legitimately be revived by individuals who have never previously belonged to it.
Micronations are, above all, communities of people. Where there is no continuity of membership between two entities, there is no basis for regarding them as the same micronation. What exists instead is an entirely new state, and it should not claim historical continuity by assuming, without the consent of the original community, its name, identity, and historical legacy.
PS. My reaction is, in fact, nothing new or unprecedented. Virtually the same were the doings of the Aztec Emperor years ago in similar circumstances.
