In a recent opinion piece, one Kit McCarthy has argued that micronationalists’ opposition to New Israel is borne out of a sort of irrational grudge or personal vendetta. The author excuses the historical basis for what they believe to be an irrational hatred of New Israel held by the community at large, not just by our State of Sandus; but at each excuse of New Israeli micronationalism, the author placably “agrees” with the majority of intermicronational opinion on New Israel.
In other words, McCarthy excuses New Israel while failing to account for the completely valid historical basis for the negative opinion of New Israel.
One ought to recount the historical basis for why many micronations and micronationalists — Sandus and myself included — hold this opinion of New Israel. This is not to say that the moral argument of McCarthy is wrong or invalid (specifically, forgiveness), but rather that states do not and should not perform actions of such importance on matters of personal forgiveness. Rather, moral matters such as these have often and should concern internationally-recognised norms in diplomacy and internal affairs: in other words, micronations should be concerned with matters of peace, equity, and justice.
And, where history is concerned, many micronations which hold “a grudge” against New Israel have perfectly valid reasons for such. On many occasions, Markus Abernathy has verbally attacked the name and persons of other micronationalists without provocation. He has done this in multiple cases with Queen Anna Lindström of Zealandia, myself, or even Casey Hamlin. He has made many undiplomatic attacks on LGBTQ+ and Leftist micronationalists, all of which have lent him a lack of a serious façade in the community in general. His inconsistency as a micronational politician and statesman, furthermore, is reflected in the opinion of him and his micronation, of New Israel. In conclusion, many micronationalists have a long standing history of enduring unwarranted attacks by M. Abernathy on those of us who live lives which do not fit into his narrow theology.
These actions, inconsistencies, and lack of diplomatic respect lend themselves to the community’s rightful disregard for New Israel. A look at Veritum Sandus’s articles on New Israel or on M. Abernathy will yield a brief portrayal of why Sandus does not lend credence to M. Abernathy or his regime. One simply can not will away under the pretext of forgiveness this experience as one might do for those who trespass against us: forgiveness is done of personal volition, but intermicronational diplomacy is of national importance and public policy. As a person, I bear no grudge towards M. Abernathy personally, but this does not mean that I will perform public actions to reconcile either him or his realm to the State of Sandus.
And, upon a closer look of New Israel today, little has changed. New Israel is still a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian micronation which forbids — as even M. McCarthy has admitted — basic human rights to entire populations of peoples who should enjoy freedoms and liberties under precepts of international law. Of course, with voluntary associations like those found in micronations, these do not affect us: but they affect in many ways our diplomacy, our external policy, and our ideological background as a country.
New Israel is an ideological antithesis to the State of Sandus.
Therefore, having read M. McCarthy’s brief and inexplicit opinion piece on the community’s “grudge” towards M. Abernathy, we see no reason to change our views of him or of New Israel. We see no compelling reason — considering our history and our precedent — to welcome M. Abernathy and to reconcile him to us. Should M. Abernathy or his colleagues wish for that to happen, it ought to be on our general terms: for M. Abernathy has for valid reasons been declared persona non grata in Sandus and in the plupart of the community.
I make the fervent and sincere recommendation to the Party and to my fellow Comrade Citizens not to engage with M. Abernathy. He and his realm stands against the sort of toleration which M. McCarthy envisions and which we have built for ourselves here in the State of Sandus. Here, we welcome peoples of all faiths to our micronation; indeed, we have welcomed Christians, Buddhists, Humanists, Atheists… all in peace here. It is my hope that M. McCarthy will see that his call for toleration falls on deaf ears when it comes to M. Abernathy and the regime of New Israel he willfully excuses, except where it concerns toleration for his or their faith; all others are not able to be tolerated. It is, in my opinion, a false hope and expectation that this should happen — and I feel at ease to say this, having known M. Abernathy since before the current New Israeli regime. I have seen no evidence of any sort of profound change that would lead me to believe that he has become tolerant on his part.
In the hope of Libera for our sovereignty,
C. Soergel P.