Commonwealth Avenue: Death to Fishy but do it before teatime
What? Philip Fish is a capable Secretary-General? We cannot stand for this! Revolution, I say! Revolution!
The OAM is in crisis yet again. This time, spikes are being polished and sharpened for Philip Fish’s head to be put on them. To be frank, this hatred of Fish is simply because he’s popular and he’s capable, simple as that. I don’t get it. Fish (or Fishy as he’s known as in these parts) has proven himself again and again and again that he is a capable Secretary-General. If nobody agrees with this, just remember the fact he’s been in power four times, three terms of which he was elected.
In addition to this, people are calling for his resignation and even the dissolution of the OAM. Some have been anticipating this and have begun constructing new organisations. There’s no denying the fact that the OAM isn’t what it once was, the introduction of the forums proved that. However, just because the OAM isn’t as powerful, influential and ‘ZOMG I WANT IN’ as it once was doesn’t mean it has to go and the SG’s head run up a flagpole. Take a look at TASPAC, the room is 98% non-TASPAC related but also host to TASPAC Grand Council votes. Just because we’re not passing resolutions among us all the time doesn’t mean we’re inactive and have to go.
One thing that amazes me though is that Fishy is for some reason the target of all this hatred. ‘Death to Fish’, they say, ‘he’s a dictator and has to resign now.’
WRONG!
Fish is in that elite group of micronationalists, that includes Mr. Reinhardt and Mr. Lucas as well (and hopefully someday me too). He didn’t get there just because he goes gung-ho over everything or that he has a brilliant voice or that he’s Greek. No, he worked for it, and because he’s a voice of authority and worship within the community means that he’s the target for the hate. Aldrich will vouch for me on this, rank equals hatred, simple as that.
So, to wrap up this rant, those nations who walked out should pipe down. Go and make a new organisation if you want. But I won’t be joining the exodus, I’m going to stay loyal to the organisation Sirocco’s been part of since November 12, 2010.
Don’t be daft, seriously.
Daniel Anderson
***
And I apologise profusely for the insane activity on the part of the Sirocco Times and the Alston Picayune. As part of Sirocco’s reforms I shall see to it that things are different round here once we hit the other side of my 17th birthday. Happy birthday to me!
The Sirocco Times 
Time for some trolling, I suppose.
Your article is good, I liked it, but in the end, you wrote about the “elite group”, which should technically include me and Mr. Lucas, together with Fish. Now I will not say this because of any personal criticism or “jealousy” I have on behalf of Aldrich, but all I can say is that, to be quite fair, I think that if there was an “elite group” of micronationalists, Aldrich Lucas shouldn’t be part of it.
He is a great administrator and a great contributor to MicroWiki, and if there was some sort of criticism against his work as Admin, I would seriously defend him because he’s been doing more than anyone around here, but micronationally speaking, there isn’t much to say. I am writing this rant because I think that comparing Aldy to an “elite micronationalist” is somehow disrespectful to those who are “real” micronationalists and have been here for a long time just for that, namely Mr. Austen, Mr. Bralesford, Mr. Puchowski, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Mejakhansk and even Mr. Soergel and Mr. Bayer, who are known as some very controversial figues, if you allow me to some more trolling. I could say many names, including people who aren’t around anymore, even Mr. Maggiore, but let’s not get too dramatic, shall we?
With this I’m not saying this is your fault because I’m sure you wrote it in good faith. However, many people are doing this mistake these days, and you are of course entitled to criticise my comment or just disagree, but I think that we must draw a line in this case. Some of us are here not only because they see MicroWiki as a “home” or because they somehow work for it, but because they all promote what I could call the “micronational dream”. Give me one thing that Mr. Lucas did as a micronationalist, with Yabloko, and I will change my mind on this subject.
Thanks.
p.s Inb4 “Reinhardt is just jealous”, I can arrogantly say that I’m having a wonderful career as micronationalist, and wouldn’t exchange it with anyone. Mine was just a rant. Take it or leave it.
http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Yabloko
http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Federal_Republic_of_St.Charlie
http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Politics_of_St.Charlie
http://stcharlie.forumcommunity.net/?f=6348433
Effectively, this article simply repeats what others have said – legitimate concerns for the OAM’s usefulness should not be mentioned because the nations that left were just jealous or simply sore losers who could not stand that the great deity Philip Fish won a vote with a margin so small it was tied – a margin that would not have been achieved if I had not been too busy with exams to properly check on the situation developing in the Council.
Within my cabinet, there has been some debate on leaving the OAM. As a relatively early member of the OAM, it appears to me that the OAM is long past the glory days of unified opposition against Lethler’s Grand Unified Micronational. In my opinion, there has not been a legitimate political goal for the OAM since the GUM collapsed. The only use that the OAM currently has for us is the possibility to meet representatives for other nations, and this can not be directly attributed to Fish, but rather to the influx of nations that changed the OAM from a doomed-to-fail oppositional organisation to a promising intermicronational organisation. All that can be attributed to Fish is that he founded the organisation and that he tried countless bureaucratic reforms – the agency system was partially developed by him, for example.
Again, I don’t give a shit about fish being in power, we attempted to change the OAM, because we thought it would be better for the organization. Others thought it would hurt the organization. As we can obviously not coexist, and run a reasonable organization, we had to split.