Overview
Xeno ideology, born of cultural suppression and systemic disenfranchisement under House Liberty, has split into two distinct schools of thought: Separatism and Reformist Thought. While they share many policy goals, the two are divided by their answer to a singular question—should the Xeno people form their own sovereign nation, or seek justice from within?

The resulting divide is as volatile as it is ideological. Though both factions call for self-determination, economic equity, and cultural revival, they increasingly accuse each other of sabotaging the greater cause, despite ironically using many of the same methods to achieve similar aims.

The Separatists: Liberty Free Republic
The Separatist faction views House Liberty as fundamentally irredeemable—an empire of lies, suppression, and exploitation. Their solution is simple in concept but immense in scope: complete political and territorial secession to establish a new, independent state called the Liberty Free Republic.


To the Separatists, any attempt to reform the current system is tantamount to collaboration. They believe that only by breaking away from House Liberty can a new and truly free society be born from the ashes of repression.

The Reformists:
In direct contrast, the Reformist faction insists that meaningful transformation can—and must—be achieved within House Liberty’s framework. They point to existing democratic mechanisms, civil institutions, and shifting public sentiment as tools capable of catalyzing reform if wielded strategically.


Reformists see separatism as dangerous, romanticized, and ultimately self-defeating. They argue that tossing aside the system altogether risks igniting civil war or economic ruin, and that only by forcing change from inside the system can lasting prosperity be secured.

Conflict and Accusations
Despite overlapping values and shared resentment toward House Liberty, the two schools are often bitter rivals. Each accuses the other of blindness and ideological betrayal.



This ideological warfare often spills into public forums, protests, and internal councils, where mutual decrying is common—each side convinced the other has lost sight of the bigger picture.

Yet this common ground only sharpens the contrast—two forces staring into the same storm but seeing different paths to survival. While one demands revolution, the other bets on resilience. Each claims to carry the flame of liberation; both fear the other may extinguish it.

Despite their animosity, the duality of Separatists and Reformists may be the Xeno movement’s greatest paradox—and perhaps its greatest strength. One dares to imagine a new world. The other insists on saving the one that already exists. Both camps continue to push forward, drawing ever closer to the fulcrum of change—in whatever form it may take.