Once again, a leading member state of the Organisation of Active Micronations has come out attacking the Grand Unified Micronational and myself without any logical justification for their criticisms. It seems that there is a trend emerging among members of this institution demonstrating that it is concerned almost entirely with a political crusade against both the GUM and the Democratic People's Republic of Erusia. I cannot help but wonder if they even discuss anything else in their secretive forum - I highly doubt it. In spite of Mr Fish's public criticism of Danvania for publishing an attack on the institution, a second prolific member state has gone on to damage the credibility of the OAM with childish, shameless political attacks that are below any serious micronationalist.

Allow me to first address Master Foxon's criticisms of the recent political changes implemented by the National People's Assembly to allow multi-party democracy within the context of a Socialist Republic guided by a supreme revolutionary vanguard. They are, as my colleagues on the Standing Committee of the Politial Bureau will testify, almost painfully entertaining. Master Foxon called the new multi-party system a "dictatorship in disguise" before proclaiming that "Robert Lethler admitted Erusia is a dictatorship when he told Erusia Central News 'the revolutionary reforms made on December 10th demonstrate the committment of the [Communist Party] to building a People’s Democratic Dictatorship'", citing a news-story published on December 11th 2009 under the heading "Legislators Pass Historic Constitutional Amendment".

It would seem, then, that Master Foxon did not even bother to conduct basic research before issuing his criticism. He is entirely correct in that I admitted Erusia is a People's Democratic Dictatorship - and he would be entirely correct to accuse the Democratic People's Republic of having such a system of government. Unfortunately for him, he does not - apparently - understand in the faintest what this term means. As those of you with even the most fundamental understanding of extensionist Marxist-Leninist theories will know, the idea of a People's Democratic Dictatorship was first concieved by Comrade Mao Zedong in a speech made to commemorate the twenty-eigth anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party. The People's Democratic Dictatorship is a system of transitionary Socialist government, similar but distinct to the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which the People are the dictators of the nation and in which they exercise their dictatorial authority through the base democratic system and their revolutionary vanguard (the Communist Party). In turn, the Communist Party is given certain dictatorial powers over enemies of the People - the reactionaries who seek to restore the old order and stop the march of Socialism. In all things, the Party must enforce the will of the People - something that is engrained in our Constitution as a legally binding clause.

In criticising such a system, Master Foxon has not only insulted the Democratic People's Republic and the Erusian National Communist Party, but the Most Glorious People's Republic of A1 and its People's Party. Our individual ideological and political disputes with A1 aside, the Most Glorious People's Republic remains a People's Democratic Dictatorship - though their model is slightly different to convention and different terminology is used to describe it - and so Master Foxon must surely hate the nation that leads this new organisation he has joined. Murrayfield, Sandus, Nemkhavia, Yongheng - and even arguably Cheslovia - are all also no doubt deeply offended by both Master Foxon's insinuations that they are Fascistic dictatorships. I would encourage Mister Fish to discuss with Master Foxon the basics of Marxist theory, in the hope that he will stop systematically offending the Socialist community with his political naivety.

I also find it curiously hypocritical that Master Foxon would accuse the Democratic People's Republic of being a dictatorship, when he governs his nation as an absolute, authoritarian ruler who is not elected or in anyway accountable to his people - indeed, his own successor would presumably be chosen by a hereditary line. How can he possibly criticise another nation of being undemocratic when he himself exercises what seems to be boundless power? Premier Lawson of Murrayfield has all ready testified that the government of Barrington is nothing more than a fake front for Master Foxon to create some kind of illusion of liberal democracy, and that all real power is vested entirely in the Monarchy on a largely de facto basis. Who is he to criticise other sof being an authoritarian dictator? I would like to remind the community that Master Foxon keeps information about his nation's system of government a tightly controlled secret - there is absolutely nothing available on MicroWiki explaining the system of government in Barrington beyond the words "Constitutional" and "Monarchy". If he is such an advocate of free and fair democracy, then I challenge him to introduce it to Barrington and allow international observers to monitor the first election just as we are doing next month in our own General Election.

I would also like to address Master Foxon's recent criticism of the Grand Unified Micronational - and indeed, myself. Before I do so, I remind you that Master Foxon by his own admission "does not hate [me]", "nor am [I] an enemy of the Kingdom of Barrington". As his recent comments show, he has a curious idea of friendship. On the talk page of the institution's wiki article, Master Foxon recently proclaimed that "We [Barrington] have joined the OAM and are quite happy there in an organisation free from dictatorship" and made the accusation that I personally rigged the vote at the trial of his nation, asserting that "All votes against our expulsion during the trial were ignored and replaced with 'yes' votes by the all powerful, all seeing, all hearing, magical Mr Robert Lethler".

As every member state of the Grand Unified Micronational knows, Jurors during a trial cast their vote in a private ballot and have the exclusive right to reveal that ballot - only the Supreme Judge presiding over the trial has the authority to view the ballots of all Jurors who vote. If a Juror wishes to make their vote public, they may do so - but no-one else, including the Supreme Judge and the Chairman of the Quorum, may reveal the vote of a Juror. To my knowledge none of the Jurors thus far have elected to reveal their ballots publically, nor has any complaint been filed from a single Juror that they believe their ballot was tampered with. Yet somehow, Master Foxon claims he knows that the Jury voted innocent (to my recollection, one single Juror - who must remain anonymous unless their ballot is voluntarily revealed - voted innocent on two of the four charges brought against Barrington) and that I personally destroyed those ballots and replaced them with guilty ones.

From this, I can draw only one of two conclusions: the first is that Barrington's leader hates democracy so much that he feels the private ballot is a weapon of evil used in some kind of campaign targetted against his nation and its leadership. The second conclusion is that Master Foxon broke the terms of Barrington's trial by not only intercepting ballots as they were cast, but tampering with copies of those ballots to create a fake innocent verdict with which to contest the true guilty verdict. There is no other possible explanation that adequately justifies his claims of fraud during the voting process. I would encourage the Jurors to come forward and reveal their ballots in public, if they are willing, so that Barrington can see the truth and realise that I am not some kind of all-powerful malevolant deity. I also remind Barrington that the reason for their appeal going unanswered is well known - Mister Sutherland has made it clear that his policy as Supreme Judge is to only accept appeals when new evidence is presented to dispute the outcome of a trial. He will not accept appeals purely for the sake of hearing them, and rightly so.

Myself and many of my colleagues within the Grand Unified Micronational are, quite frankly, growing tired of this nonsense. Nations like Barrington wish to see the institution collapse and burn not because they have any genuine grievance with it, but because they cannot stand the fact that their attitude and tendencies have prevented them from obtaining a position of "power" within it. Our institution has accomplished more than most micronational institutions do in their first year, and I for one have no intention to see this marvelous organisation crumble because of the machinations of a minority of individuals so hell-bent on personal power that they will do anything to subvert our moral authority.