What organisation?
Of course, a secret one.
And if a secret one, top secret, then having no name.
Nameless organisation. Maybe with a capital letter in the beginning:

Of course, it is sheer banality, to say and write it is so top secret
nobody knows about it, even the Organisation itself knows nothing about
its existence and activity.

It's also very banal to say and write that if the darkest place is under the lamp,
then the most secret is what everybody knows very well. If Organisation is (or is to be)
the most secret and mysterious, then it is (must be) known perfectly well by everybody
thus it is beyond any suspicions. For example: we are looking for Organisation in a forest,
we imagine it must be hidden in a perfectly masked system of underground bunkers joined by
the labyrinth of corridors and tunnels, or in nests pretending bird nests and hung high in
the treetops, while it turns out the forest itself is Organisation ....... ha! ha! ha!
we are right, the Organisation is in the forest, because it is the forest, and the forest
must be in the forest, can't be somewhere else.....
Does it all mean Liberland is Organisation?

Here and now comes the silence, which can be interpreted in various ways.

Of course, Liberland is an organisation. If it is a state, it is also an organisation,
because every state is an organisation. There are different kinds of organisations, and a state
is one of them. A state which is not an organisation, is not a state. However, the question was
a bit different: is Liberland the Organisation? It could turn out, for example, that Liberland
is oRganisation. Or oRgAnisation – it is not an accident, it can't be an accident, that sometimes
the name of this state is written Li
Berland. Are Liberland and
LiBerland two different states, or maybe just two
aspects of one and the same state? This is another very interesting question.....
The logic would indicate,
that Organisation is more important than oRganisation – thus the existence of a hierarchy would be assumed.
Following this kind of logic ORGANISATION would be the most important, and ORganisation would be more
important than Organisation. According to these rules (what rules?), would ORganisation be more important
than OrGanisation? And would Organisation be more important than oRGANISATION? We should again ask
a question, this time without brackets, what logic we use to settle the hierarchy of importance.

Now we should consider if something, for example an organisation, can be at the same time secret and overt.
The answer is simple and clear and need no considerations: yes. Secretness and overtness are but
complementary and contrasting aspects. Like Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde. Like yin and yang. It is also
beyond any consideration that something which overt for some people can be secret for the others,
and vice versa.

Let us come back to the forest.

When we are in the forest it seems to us there are nothing but the forest in the world;
the forest is everywhere, the forest covers entire Earth, the forest is the world,
the world is the forest.

When we are in the forest, we can see the forest consists of many smaller worlds: here mushrooms,
there ferns, over there lichens..... Those smaller worlds swirl around, penetrate each other, overlap,
interlace, mix, stir, absorb, unite, divide..... These are organisations. Various ones. Legal, illegal,
usually acting without any permission, or with someone's unclear acceptance that can not be verified.
Mosaic, kaleidoscope, dump, pile, pyramid, mound of organisations.

Associations, unions, complots, parties, alliances, fronts, assemblies, societies, branches, factions....
When we are not in the forest, when we are out of the forest, when we can see this forest from a distance,
then we can see it is not the entire world, and the world is not a forest, then we can see a forest
is but one of many smaller worlds the big world is composed of, then the forest manifests for us as
a homogeneous entity. We could talk about an organisation of forests aiming to stop the expansive
organisations of fields and meadows, or a ruthless front of roads and highways,
or any other coalition.

Well, let's take the forest easy. Let it grow as it likes, let it be or not be an organisation.
Or Organisation. Or orgaNIsation. Let spruces found a secret association aiming to transform
the fir forest into a spruce one..... We don't care about the forest. The forest is neither
Liberland nor LiBerland ...... Though a suspicion that just the forest (Forest? fOrest? foRest?
forEST? ForEST? foresT?
forest? . . . . . . ..... . . . .) growing in Liberland is Organisation.
Identifying Liberland as Organisation would be too banal, too obvious, even boring.

So, if Liberland is not Organisation, then what is Organisation? What is organised in Organisation?
Comas? No, if so, then periods..... No, not periods and dots – they are too easily detectable.
Periods and dots are used not in a standard way, they often, too often, break the rules.
Dots are here too mysterious, they seem to have some secret functions. They want to send
more messages than usually, much more. They behave unpredictably. Their number is always
unknown and surprising. The place where they gather is unknown, too .. . . . . . . .
But hyphens can surprise even more - - - - - - -

To find if Organisation really exists and what or who is organised in it, is just the beginning.
Finding what this Organisation is for will be of the same importance. What are its noble or mean
or noble-mean or mean-noble aims. What it is fighting for. What it is defending against.
Whether it makes alliances with other similar Organisations, or maybe it disdains them,
or it is a unique one and knows no alliances at all, doesn't need them, doesn't think of
any...... Is its structure crystal, hierarchical or amorphous? Is it a net where every
nod and every link is of the same importance, and there is no centre, no core, no head?
...... Maybe it has a statute? Any unwritten laws? Carefully guarded initiation rites?

Only questions. Nothing but questions.

Nothing but question marks.

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Maybe question marks?


Why not exclamation marks? Why do we assume Organisation must be at least mournful,
pompous, dead serious? If it were absolutely overt, secretly overt, overt-secret,
it could be joyful, ridiculous, witty, grotesque, euphoric, noisy.

I have picked at punctuation. I could have picked at diacritic signs
as well or at compound sentences.

I have done so due to despair. I know nothing. I'm plagued with unclear,
misty premonitions – that Liberland is infected, is being eaten by something.
A gangrene or cancer or pest or devastating parasite . . . . . . . .
It's so much easier to think such things up
than to imagine the Organisation simply
does not exist.