Creation of independent micro- ethnic states

KamaIn « No country or ethnic group is too small to be independent », September 1995 In an era where many countries are trying to come together and create special markets in order to increase their economic competitiveness, it may seem paradoxical to assert it would be advantageous for any country or ethnic group to become independent, but it is the case. The examples of the European Economic Community (EEC) or the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico and Canada, are built on the same model: the one where independent States are signing agreements.
Undoubtedly, the UN foreshadows a world government, which is gradually forming and is the only solution to save Humanity. By avoiding senseless wars that could destroy all life on Earth through the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, a world government would also adopt measures to prevent ecological disasters that would have the same end result. Whether it is about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), or agreements on the protection of the ozone layer, or animal and plant endangered species, only a world government can make decisions while maintaining a global and planetary vision of the problem. But this does not imply that member States of this World Government lose their autonomy; Quite the contrary. Currently, all the states that have a seat at the UN are entirely independent when it comes to their internal matters. Any independent country would have its place among the nations represented at the UN today, just as it would in the World Government tomorrow, and this, without any problem. Those who are against sovereignty claim that certain countries are “too small” to be independent.
This fear of being "too small" is skilfully instilled by all those who want to frighten you, the same way they would scare a child who wants to leave the family home by telling him: "You are too small." This is probably one of the greatest fears they are attempting to arouse in the people seeking independence for their country. Yet, as always, this fear is based on a total lack of information in terms of where your people truly lie in relation to other populations of this planet. All we need to do is ask this question to people around us to realize how misinformed they really are: “How many independent countries are less populated than yours?” Timid people would answer 5 or 6, while more audacious people would answer 10, perhaps 20! But what are the actual numbers?
Here is a comprehensive list of sovereign States, with their population count taken during the 2009 census. You be the judge: COUNTRY NUMBER OF INHABITANTS VATICAN 700 NAURU 8 000 ÎLES CAÏMANS 17 000 SAINT-MARTIN 21 000 LICHTENSTEIN 26 000 MONACO 28 000 ANDORRE 38 000 ST. KITTS AND NEVIS 50 000 KIRIBATI 61 000 SEYCHELLES 70 000 JERSEY 77 000 ANTIGUA ET BARBUDA 80 000 DOMINIQUE 81 000 TONGA 110 000 GRENADE 121 000 VANUATU 125 000 SAINT-VINCENT ET GRENADINES 128 000 SAINTE-LUCIE 130 000 ÎLES SAMOA 156 000 ÎLES MALDIVES 160 000 BÉLIZE 170 000 BRUNEI 220 000 ISLANDE 240 000 BAHAMAS 250 000 LA BARBADE 260 000 SALOMON 269 000 QATAR 300 000 CAP-VERT 310 000 MALTE 360 000 LUXEMBOURG 365 000 GUINÉE EQUATORIALE 380 000 SURINAM 385 000 BAHREÏN 400 000 ILES FIDJI 700 000 GAMBIE 800 000 GUINÉE-BISSAU 900 000 SWAZILAND 905 000 GUYANA 920 000 ÎLE MAURICE 1 000 000 NAMIBIE 1 050 000 BOTSWANA 1 100 000 KOWEIT 1 200 000 TRINITÉ ET TOBAGO 1 201 000 OMAN 1 205 000 EMIRATS ARABES UNIS 1 300 000 ESTONIE 1 356 000 GABON 1 400 000 LESOTHO 1 500 000 CONGO 1 700 000 MAURITANIE 1 900 000 MACÉDOINE 1 909 000 MONGOLIE 1 910 000 SLOVÉNIE 1 915 000 PANAMA 2 200 000 LIBÉRIA 2 205 000 YÉMEN DU SUD 2 300 000 SINGAPOUR 2 500 000 LETTONIE 2 604 000 JORDANIE 2 610 000 COSTA RICA 2 615 000 RÉPUBLIQUE CENTRAFICAINE 2 700 000 URUGUAY 3 000 000 TOGO 3 010 000 NICARAGUA 3 100 000 TURKMÉNISTAN 3 189 000 ARMÉNIE 3 300 000 NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDE 3 310 000 LITUANIE 3 450 000 IRLANDE 3 500 000
Almost all the countries listed above have, at one time or another in their history, been forcibly dominated or colonized by more powerful military forces. But eventually, when the right to self-determination began to be recognized internationally in a world that strived to become more civilized and where bullying could no longer prevail, they were able to liberate themselves from their oppressors.
All these countries are members of the UN, an entity that has already started becoming a World Government insofar as world-related matters, such as the protection of the environment, are concerned. By becoming independent, your country or ethnic group would, as expected, take its place as a member of the UN so that its voice would be heard when future decisions would be taken by this World Federation. The will of a People to become independent and affirm its distinctive cultural attributes is not unique to this world. A few centuries ago, if the tendency was the constitution of great geopolitical entities placed under the rule of a centralized authority through the use of military forces at the service of colonialism, this movement has clearly reversed itself in the past few decades.
Everywhere in the world, even extremely small countries have broken the shackles of colonialism to regain their freedom and their dignity as a free people. No matter how many years or centuries spent under the domination of countries that have conquered them by force, the will of the people to self-determination is irrepressible and inextinguishable. The British, French, Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires have collapsed successively, following more or less bloody battles; and the powerful military forces of the United States could do nothing against the will of the Vietnamese people. This movement toward freedom is only accelerating. Since the collapse of the USSR, more than a dozen of its former member states have proclaimed their independence, and it isn’t over just yet. The new Russian Federation, which includes what is left of the obsolete Soviet Empire, recently had to agree to share its naval fleet with Ukraine, since it is already based in the ports of the new independent state. Russia may choose to use its forces against Chechen people to try and dissuade other countries from separating, but this will not work. Quite the contrary! Seeing the armies of a country that is supposed to protect its people from potential enemies’ slaughter its own population can only reinforce your desire to rely on yourself for protection.
The break-up of Yugoslavia and its separation from the former Czechoslovakia into two distinct states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, are other examples that confirm this movement toward independence. China, which has nothing communist left but its name, will, sooner or later, certainly experience the same fate and explode into several countries that have a language and a culture of their own. And this process is not exclusively reserved to former communist countries. In Italy, a very powerful political party is advocating the creation of an independent state, which includes the rich northern provinces of the peninsula. In California, there is a party that has started to campaign for California to separate and become an independent state; the same goes for Texas that wants to secede from the United States. Belgians and French-speaking Swiss have the same inclinations.
Your people must remember, if this is the case, that they were appended by force and their ancestors were dominated, brutalized, and humiliated. They were also forbidden to speak their own language and were reduced to religious and economic slavery. All of this cannot and should not be forgotten. It must be remembered again and again; your people and your country has most likely become what it is because it was invaded by military forces. Any argument against independence that does not take this fact into account is worthless, while any argument that takes this fact into account is bound to collapse on its own in a world that claims to be governed by Law rather than by force. What was built by force is worthless in such a world, whether it was accomplished yesterday or several centuries ago. If Iraq invades Kuwait, the proper course of action is to force it out. Similarly, if only for the memory of those who were killed by the invading armies of the French, British, Portuguese or other forces, separating from the current governing power that represents these countries is also the proper course of action.
I must admit I find it difficult to understand why certain people would be against the independence of their own country or ethnic group. Either they are not among those who have populated their country for generations and, being new immigrants, do not feel concerned by what has happened in the past, or they have no respect for the memory of their ancestors who have suffered under the yoke of the colonizers and who have died in their jails or from their bullets. Seriously, it is important to face the truth and realize at the very outset that if violence had not been used your country would have been independent a long time ago. Ignoring this truth is agreeing with those who advocate the use of military force and accepting what Saddam Hussein was denied: the forceful annexation of a piece of land through violence.
The only weapon colonial forces can use to try and keep control over your people is fear. Fear of being too small to succeed in an increasingly unstable world, be it economically, politically, militarily or socially. As always, the best way to frighten people is to hide the truth from them, or to make them believe in a totally imaginary reality that deliberately exaggerates the dangers and risks. As always, the best way to fight against public disinformation is to spread true information as much as possible by using tangible examples that prove why your people has everything to gain from being independent in a world where all peoples are currently experiencing the same phenomenon i.e., becoming independent while showing planetary solidarity. This means becoming autonomous and responsible for our choices while helping one another. Autonomy and solidarity are key words stemming from the new aspirations of the people of our planetary village. And the aspiration for the independence of your people fits perfectly with this global tendency.
Humanity has finally understood it is better to live in a world governed by law than by force. There is not a single civilized nation that seeks to seize the wealth of its neighboring country through military conquest. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait sent a strong message to the possible few tyrants still present in backward countries that the international community will not tolerate that any country engages in military aggression for any gain whatsoever. (It is comforting to think that if the colonizers who invaded your country a few centuries ago would make the same attempt today, the international community would send troops to chase them out of your territories...) Humanity has finally understood it could survive only in a world governed by the rule of Law rather than by Force. But military confrontations have given way to economic confrontations and, consequently, an economic war has conveniently replaced military conflicts. Today, it is no longer the most aggressive or imperialist people that get wealthier, but the most intelligent. It is no longer those who maintain a huge military power, but those who invest in research, innovation, and education. It is no longer those who maintain an army of generals, tanks and bombers, but those who train scientists, inventors, and bankers. This is the revenge of the intellectual over the massive brute loaded with decorations like a hen loaded with fat.
The new armies of the economic war are made up of men and women who are motivated by individual wealth, which will contribute to the collective wealth of the population they are a part of. Their generals are entrepreneurs and investors who dare take personal risks in order to succeed. These non-violent armies must elect leaders that will enact policies allowing them to better defend their interests. Leaders have understood that in this non-violent world we are engaged in a total and all-out economic war. A country that wants the well-being of its population to increase must put all its assets on the side of its armies, without paralyzing them with too heavy a burden, or with a non-productive population that is so large it can generate crushing income taxes and inevitably lead to record unemployment rates. One of the punishments that losers of the economic war face is, indeed, unemployment. A country of winners, on the other hand, must invest everything in the battle by lowering taxes as much as possible because taxes take a toll on the soldiers, and by lowering the burden on civil servants, which working people must provide for. Furthermore, in this merciless struggle that sees certain States sink deeper into economic difficulties while others succeed brilliantly and see their populations continuously increase their standards of living, political leaders must always be mindful of this international competition. When the military power ruled the world, no military leader ever considered not using all possible weapons to win a war. The same must apply for the economic war. A winning country must, at all costs, use its best assets to win. What are these assets that make the difference and that can make your country or ethnic group wealthier than many other countries with larger populations? We will address this in the next chapter on economic decolonization.
Remarks made in Accra (Ghana), December 2004 The colonizers arrived; they took a map, they drew lines, the English and the French. Hey, we will draw a line: Here, to the North it’s yours, to the South it is mine. The separated ethnic groups; they divided the whole people in two parts. Families were separated, it does not matter they are savages. And the traced a line; anyway, they have no soul and a line was drawn and suddenly some are found in the North and others in the South of the borderline: the parents, children, brothers and sisters are separated. It still exists; you know it, you have ethnic groups with one part in Côte d'Ivoire and another part in the Burkina Faso. Did the Africans decide that? Never! Who did? The colonizers! And after, there are all these monstrous things named decolonization. And the borders remained exactly the same. And that is what we have to change. Ah! It does not please the African governments making it into a sort of auto-colonization. They recovered what they claimed they fought for, that is colonialism. And now, they are presidents, enriched, misappropriating the money their own country and landing their money in Switzerland. Them, they are very happy, they are very happy and they plunder their own country. And when they are overturned, they go abroad and live off of their savings. This is auto-colonization.
All of this has to be destroyed. Destroy the African borders never created by the Africans. Destroying when there is nothing to replace, is not worth it. You have to destroy them and replace them by something else, something you can replace. Replace by what? Getting back and find the borders of the ethnic groups. Oh the African rulers do not like hearing that; it deprives them off their privileges. Obviously, they do not want to lose the millions they accumulate while all the people are dying of hunger. So, they look at this with an evil; they want to imprison you. They say it is contrary to the constitution. What is the constitution? It was brought by colonizers and we took it word by word without changing anything. That is not the decolonization! It is a continuation of the colonization and this is what is happening in Africa. Find out the ethnic groups. There are a lot. There are what? 50 ethnic groups in Côte d’Ivoire, I do not know! 60 in Burkina Faso, I do not know how many! They should each be an independent state. It is quite small, it is as if it is too small to be economically viable; it is not true. Each Swiss province is quite small, a lot smaller than certain African ethnic groups. I assure you the territories of the biggest Ivory Coast ethnic group, is almost bigger than Switzerland territory, in its entirety. And this, we cannot talk about it, we do not want to tell you every ethnic group has its autonomous government, every ethnic group finds its king, its queen, with a constitutional democracy. Oh, as they like, the Whites, mocking at kings and African emperors! Now, that is what they like. First Bokassa! But that is so funny! What horror! And everybody giggles and rolls on the floor laughing. Great!
In France, not long ago, there was an emperor. In England, there is a queen today earning a lot of money every year … Why do they laugh at African kings? It is because they are Black. All right! OK, I did not understand. That is the reason! There is, you have a king in an African country (what is his name, the one who ordered the most beautiful car on earth), Swaziland. Here is a king who has just ordered the most beautiful car on earth. Here is a king who has just ordered the most beautiful car on earth. And everybody is indignant because his people are poor, saying: "How come! The country is poor, a lot of people are starving to death and he buys the richest, the most luxurious car in the world". Oh, just a moment! 30 % of Blacks in America are below the poverty line, are unemployed. 60% of the American prison population is Black. 30 % of Black Americans are in a state of malnutrition, they do not eat properly. To my knowledge, nobody criticizes the President of the United States of having the most luxurious car in the world by saying in the mean time: there are unfortunate people who are starving to death. In Africa, they are Black, oh OK! I did not understand. This is what disturbs them. An English king, a king from Denmark, a king from Sweden, they are White, everything is well. But a king from Africa, what horror! Democracy …
There is a queen in England … "For a start restore democracy in your homeland, reassure yourself first of the European rights. Later, you can come to see what goes on here ". Totalitarian regime, a president elected for life, what horror! Right in the heart of Europe, there is a small country sitting at the UN, it is named the Vatican where the head of government is elected for life. It is the Pope. Not only is he elected for life but he is infallible, meaning everything he says, can only be right; he never makes a mistake. I, myself, make mistakes; you make mistakes; the ELOHIM make mistakes, but the Pope, never. He is the leader of a European state.
But when a President stays there too long, oh what horror! Because he is Black, I did not understand! Do you understand what I am trying to explain to you? They deny you all dignity. I do think it is very good for the President of Swaziland to have bought the most beautiful car on earth. There are people who will still not eat enough, he will have to do something about it and he will certainly do it because he loves his people, for sure, because he is an African traditional leader and African traditional leaders think of their people first and not their wallet.
Elected presidents, well then, you know what they do. They accumulate money, they plunder the country, they build cathedrals in Yamoussoukro (that one, it is a good one), in the middle of the villages where people starve to death. It is not a king who did that, it is a president welcomed by France and admired by all the European people. That is because he is president. No, but that does not matter, he is president. But, a king who buys a car, costing a thousandth of a thousandth of the price of the Yamoussoukro cathedral, what a horrible Black, who dares to buy the most expensive car in the world! He is king. It is crazy!

Download FREE e-BOOKS of RAEL