If a measure of celebrity status proves effective as a way to launch a micronation and seize the imagination of a group of people, then it’s not inherently more problematic than access to deep pockets or the appeal of long traditions of culture as a basis for a nation. We don’t criticize angel investors who still hope to make a return on their investment. We cherish traditions, especially if they persist in monetizable festivals, art, and tourism. Why criticize publicity, which if well-managed can achieve results? We’re looking for MASER — micronational attention, sympathy, engagement and results.
The previous post decried celebrity as something negative, a kind of selling out to vulgar and transient fame. This stance ignores pragmatism. There’s nothing inherently wrong with celebrity, so long as it’s not pursued for its own sake. In other words, a “Kardashian micronation” we’re not. We can deploy fame — even modest notoriety when available — in order to generate positive influence. However original, moving, delightful and inspiring our culture, if no one knows about it, it dies on the vine with the passing of those who initiated it. Celebrity is a tool suited to today, with its media platforms and quick response to attention.
“Seize the means of production”? So old school, so 19th century. Economies take time to build. But seize the attention of the public skillfully, and run with it, and you have an instant market.
* * * * * * * * *
NOTE: Individual posts express the opinions and perspectives of the author and do not necessarily reflect official Sovermian policy or practice, unless explicitly indicated as such in a particular post.