Melinda Gates is Throwing Away Billions and Calling it Charity

  Late last week Queen Jennifer sent me an article about Melinda Gates. The article is quite positive about how Melinda Gates is going to spend billions and thereby save millions of lives. Other articles are more measured, but warn that there will be 'push back'.
  Now, why would there be push back against a plan that, we are told, will save 'millions of lives'? What will these billions be spent on?
  Those billions are going to be spent giving birth control to women in the developing world. That's right, birth control.
  Please keep in mind that the United Nations Population Fund is already currently spending $1.7 billion a year on birth control and other population control measures. And that the United States spends about $750 million a year on the same goal. As well, every member of the OECD spends tens to hundreds of millions on population control measures (largely by providing birth control) for the developing world. Finally the IMF and World Bank both have their own budget to provide birth control to the developing world and typically make their economic assistance and loans contingent upon the countries receiving aid implementing internal birth control programs.
  In other words, the major governments and NGO's of the world are already spending billions on this very project, just as they have been for 40+ years. Why? well, until the 1990's the stated rationale was that the world was facing the spectre of catastrophic overpopulation. In additions to the tens of billions spent on birth control the period between the 1960's and the 1990's also saw mass sterilization campaigns (often forced on women against their will) and programs with stiff fines, prison, and more targeted at reducing birth rates. Since the demographic research of the 1990's proved that demographers of the 1970's were correct and that there never was a risk of catastrophic overpopulation the rationale has been changed to be that contraceptive use is 'good for women'.
  As mentioned in one of the articles linked above, some studies claim that 'contraceptive use is good for women's health'. Considering that the Gates Foundation wants to promote the use of depo-provera (which has side effects ranging from rash to hemorrhage and is known to cause increased risk of hypertension, stroke, heart attack, and cancer, is known as a direct cause of bone loss, may cause infertility and that children born of depo-provera users are low weight and twice as likely to die in their first year of life - and it may cause withdrawal symptoms similar to an opiate) and Sino-implant (II), a system that hasn't finished clinical trials and is not cleared for use by the World Health Organization, it is hard to defend the argument that providing these drugs to women is going to improve their health. This may be why the Gates Foundation also plans to spend billions developing new birth control implants, including, possibly, what is in effect a life-long cybernetic implant. Again, it is unclear how the expenditure of vast sums on the possibility of a birth control solution that requires surgical implantation and is then a life-long accessory is 'improving women's health'.
  The Gates Foundation, and many others, also argue that contraception 'improves the lives of women' and point to a handful of studies that purport to prove that women who use contraception are healthier, better educated,  and wealthier than their neighbors who do not use contraception. The article linked above from Business Insider lists one of the most often cited study that makes these claims, Joshi and Schultz' study 'Family Planning as an Investment in Development' which is an analysis of data collected in Matlab, Bangladesh over a period of 35 years. The Joshi-Schultz study is a favorite amongst groups like the Population Reference Bureau and other NGOs that advocate for increased birth control aid for developing nations. This should be obvious since the study claims that women in the Matlab district who use birth control have an average of 1 less child (5 instead of 6) and also have a higher (healthier) BMI, their homes are worth more, they have more land, are better educated, have daughters with a healthier (higher) BMI, and her children are much more likely to be vaccinated.
  That sounds pretty amazing, doesn't it? As you may well imagine, this study is a powerful tool in the hands of people who want to promote giving birth control to the developing world. After all, if giving women depo-provera can make them wealthier, healthier, and get their kids vaccinated why would you oppose it?
  Unfortunately, the data the study is based on, the so-called Matlab Study, shows nothing of the kind, in the end.
  What occurred in Matlab was fairly straightforward; between 1976 and 1996 about half of the 150 or so villages in the district were part of an outreach program where advocates went door-to-door offering birth control: the other half of the villages did not receive visits. At the end the women were compared, one group to another, and the women receiving birth control advocacy were wealthier and healthier. Thus says the abstract.
  But once you dive into the actual study itself (downloadable at the link provided) you learn a very different story. The 'Community Health Workers' that traveled door-to-door were "...women from... ...influential families in the villages, married, with 8 or more years of education, and who used contraception themselves." In other words, the women walking door to door urging the other women to use birth control were the wives of the village chiefs, etc., wealthier, and more educated. This is a fair amount of social pressure to conform and was obviously an attempt to influence women to emulate the wealthy  women of influential families.
  The study also very clearly states that offering birth control was not all that these Community Health Workers and their peers did. The study tells us that the outreach program included the following programs - pre- and post-natal healthcare for the mother and babies; inoculations of the mother and all children she had; oral rehydration therapy for children suffering from diarrhea; training of midwives; and training for the men about the creation and use of ponds for aquaculture, improved farming techniques, and other methods of improving crop yields and generating additional cash from the sale of produce.
  Now, some of these programs were extended to all of the villages of the region, but only well after more than half of the study was done. In other words, Joshi and Schultz are claiming that when you offer 1/2 of a region vaccinations, health care, training, education, and birth control and do not offer them to the other half the reason that the women and children from the first half are healthier and wealthier is because they had access to birth control!
  It is obvious from the actual studies that what made the women from the first half of Matlab healthier was health care, which should surprise no one. Also, training farmers how to improve their farms made them more successful - also not a surprise. Further, vaccinating children means that children are vaccinated. It actually doesn't tell us much about birth control other than if women use birth control they tend to have fewer children.
  This is also not a surprise.
  Another obvious fact that can be gleaned from Matlab and the rest of the world is that if Melinda Gates really wanted to help women she wouldn't be spending billions of dollars duplicating the efforts of the largest governments and NGOs in the world, she should be spending it on oral rehydration, training farmers, and other things we can actually prove make women and children healthier and wealthier.
 

How to "Win" a Culture War

  A lot of ink is spilled every year in America over what they call a 'culture war'. Now, America tends to be rather inward-looking at the best of times, as evidenced by their belief that Libertarians are "right-wing", but this is perhaps most obvious in the assumptions behind their discussion of the "culture war". First, there is an assumption that a nation the size of America (third largest and third most populous in the world) is meant to or even can have a culture. Second, that contention between various cultures can be arbitrated by public discussion and media articles. Third, that extant cultures aren't always in some level of contention with one another. And, lastly, that the two positions defined by the media are "cultures".
  In reality, America has a wide range of cultures that cannot be shoehorned into the false dichotomy of 'Democrat/Republican' without making legitimate discussion almost impossible. This can be seen by, again, looking at the Libertarians. Libertarians hold liberal social positions and liberal economic positions yet are called "conservatives" merely because they oppose the Democratic Party's economic platform.
  Yet people are heavily invested in this 'culture war'; people from various (real) cultures are quite busy in aligning themselves into opposing camps and slugging it out. And not just in America - similar elements may be seen all over the world, particularly in what is called the West. So what is really going on?
  We contend that the real conflict is between what can be broadly thought of as Progressive thought and Conservative thought. Not precisely what Enlightenment philosophers taught, nor precisely what Romantic philosophers thought, but very similar ideas. More akin to 'the natural consequences of Enlightenment philosophy vs. the antecedents of Romantic philosophy', but handy as a shorthand description.
  So there is a very real conflict going on, a conflict that is important. The Conservative ideals focus on life, emotional health, social stability, family, moral fortitude, justice, religion, self-control, and prudential judgment. Of course, its opponents claim Conservatism leads to hierarchy, stagnation, and prejudice. Progressive concepts focus on change, rationality, science, growth, and the erasure of class differences. Its opponents claim that it leads to moral relativism, chaos for its own sake, and unaccountable elites.
  Note: Libertarianism is thus properly Progressive.
  For the record, Edan is thoroughly Conservative; God, king and family are the cornerstones of Edan as they are for Conservatism. Hierarchy is inevitable, so plan for it and associate it with more duties and responsibilities than privilege; ensure that stability doesn't become stagnation; aim what prejudice there is against injustice. The fruits of Progressivism are the Terror of the French Revolution, the corruption of modern democracies, and the slaughter of the 20th Century.
  As a true Conservative I hear many other self-described Conservatives asking each other (and us) questions along these lines,
  "How do we win the Culture War?"
  "How do we gain a voice in the media?"
  "What is the most effective way to garner votes for our position?"
  "Why is our lobbying not as effective as that of Progressives?"
  These questions tell me that these self-described Conservatives have a problem that transcends their concerns. That problem is that they think like Progressives, not like Conservatives. Bear with me as I explain.
  Let me begin with an example. As an adult convert and trained theologian I encounter a fair number of outspoken atheists, atheists that wish to engage me in a debate. A far too typical beginning to such an attempt at 'debate' is something along the lines of,
  "Everyone knows there is no evidence for the existence of God."
  These people are always confused by my reaction, which is natural and unforced. That reaction is loud laughter. As someone with formal training in logic, philosophy, history, and theology such a statement is quite funny and I react as such. The mere statement demonstrates that the speaker is either ignorant or dishonest to the point that discussion is almost worthless. I have a similar reaction when someone speaks of 'The Problem of Evil'. I usually bluntly tell the speaker that Theodicy is a topic over 2,500 years old with many a volume written about it. If they cannot demonstrate their familiarity with the topic I will not waste my time discussing it with them.
  Does this surprise you? Perhaps even upset you? Does the fact that I bluntly reject ignorance or dishonesty as positions anger you? Then perhaps you are part of the problem, too.
  When a Creationist argues that the Second Law of Thermodynamics 'disproves' evolution, I similarly reject their position as ignorant or dishonest. When someone refers to the Boston Massacre as an attack by soldiers on innocent, unarmed men I also reject their position as ignorant or dishonest. Why?
  Justice demands it.
  One of the concepts of the Progressive is that consensus is or has a sort of truth about it. If enough people agree on a topic then that position must have some truth to it. This is a natural outgrowth of both Enlightenment philosophy and of Democracy. After all, Democracy largely is 'reality by consensus'. Because of this unconscious assumption we end up with such stock phrases as,
  "Well, that may be true for you but it isn't true for me."
  and,
  "If we frame the argument properly we will win people over."
  The first bluntly states that truth is purely subjective. The second subtly informs us that the speaker values agreement over accuracy; they see being agreed with as on par with, even superior to, being right.
  But this isn't how either reality or Conservatism work. If 10,000 people think a falsehood true, it is still false. Repeating a fallacious argument many different ways until it convinces some that it is true does not make the argument true - it just means you have hoodwinked a few people. There is even a word for repeating lies persuasively until they are believed; propaganda. Such tactics deserve no other response than contempt.
  Yet Progressives have not only continued to use them, many self-described Conservatives not only fall for it, they participate! When abortion supporters say things like,
  "A fetus isn't human."
  "A fetus isn't alive."
  "A fetus is a parasite."
  The general response isn't incredulous laughter, or mockery of the speaker's ignorance of basic biology, the general response is to act as if the speaker has uttered a reasonable position that deserves, even requires, a response! What has happened is that the Conservative has accepted the one of the core concepts of Progressives; that all ideas - even false ones - are equally valid if enough people repeat them; as valid. In other words, they start the argument by implicitly rejecting the core tenet of Conservatism; that truth is objective.
  The belief that engaging Progressives in rational debate to persuade people of the truth isn't supportable, either. Remember, Progressives believe that what they believe is valid because they believe it. Changing the mind of such a person is quite difficult and virtually impossible by appealing to logic and reality. Experience has shown that the undecided typically side with the very emotionally-charged Progressives over the unsure Conservatives. And why shouldn't they? The Conservatives start be accepting the Progressives' core tenets as the first step.
  Another example can be found here. In this article a Conservative man struggles to explain why Conservatives appear to be losing the "Gay Marriage Debate". Mr. Jalsevac comes across as a good, dedicated man who wishes to do good and help Conservatives. Mr. Jalsevac also has a very good point - the key is to be consistent in your beliefs. But he doesn't go far enough because there is no "debate" about 'gay marriage' any more than there is a debate about white really being black or up including down. Simply engaging with Progressives on the topic yields ground to falsehood by allowing them to pretend that their outrageous position may have some merit.
  So how does one 'win' a culture war? Let's look at history. The Roman Empire was a juggernaut; its military was unbeatable and its culture (language, art, economy, religion, etc.) overwhelmed its neighbors, sometimes before its military. Being Roman was almost a 'default position'. Then Christianity came along.
  Christianity rejected many core concepts of Roman culture, such as the traditional religion, ethics, attitudes toward marriage, legal concepts, and more. The Romans, seeing that Christianity opposed and would undermine the very idea of what 'being Roman' meant, outlawed Christianity. But in the end old Roman culture collapsed and was replaced with Christianity. How did Christianity triumph?
  It wasn't by lobbying, or stacking courts with sympathetic judges. Nor revolution, violent protests, or sit-in. They didn't picket, bribe senators, create PACs, hire criers to shout their positions in the forum, or create other 'alternate media venues'.
  What did they do? They lived their own culture consistently and refused to engage in the corrupt Roman culture except when (often quite literally) forced to. And the level of force required was often lethal. Sts. Peter and Paul didn't start their sermons with 'while granting that others may differ', they explained the truth and why the truth must be adhered to.
  Christianity prevailed for the simple reason it is better than paganism. Roman culture was already tearing itself to pieces, which is why it feared Christianity. That is also why early Christians refused to participate with it or engage with it.
  Consensus as a replacement for truth; manipulation of media; use of biased courts; enacting biased legislation by purchasing votes via donations; these are tactics of Progressivism rooted in the core concepts of Progressivism. To engage in them is to give credence to the false ideals that underlie Progressive thought. Conservatives who do this with the expectation that there will be a net gain for Conservative ideals are as misguided as Libertarians that claim to be 'real' Conservatives.
  Progressivism is also tearing itself to pieces, right before our eyes. From internal conflicts to the brute fact that Progressive just don't have very many children, it is doomed to failure and collapse by its very nature. Conservatives who attempt to engage with this culture, especially on its terms, are also doomed to failure.
  Conservatives will 'win' by simply being Conservative and not being Progressive; by living within their own Conservative paradigm and culture they will survive while Progressives self-destruct. Progressives pass a law on 'gay marriage'? Treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Progressives pass a law demanding that Catholics must pay for sterilization? Ignore it and refuse to pay until the prisons overflow with Catholics. Abortionists claim that unborn children aren't human? Mock their ignorance and raise your children to love life.
  In the end Conservatism and Progressivism are, really,  Reality and the Tinkerbell Effect. The Tinkerbell Effect refers to things that don't really exist, people just pretend that they do. Reality, however, it that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.
  Conservatives have to stop believing in Progressivism.

On Pope Francis [by HRH Jonathan]

 This may be a few weeks late, but it still needs to be said. First of all, habemus papam! Magnum hoc gaudium! Beneficium Dei Pontifecti Francisco! We have a new Pope to lead us. Let us follow his lead and plan in spreading and strengthening the Catholic faith throughout the world, and may he always be blessed.

Second of all, it has come to my attention that there are many, many Catholics, and some others, who are taking a very critical stance of our new Pope. People across the globe, especially those who identify themselves in the Traditionalist camp, are loudly declaring that the Church has gained a terrible leader who will undo all the good done by Benedict XVI. They point to Francis' inclusion of women in the foot-washing ceremony, his failure to revive the Papal Coronation, and his eschewing of regal garb amongst other things as grievous breaks with tradition; which can only indicate a slide away from the traditionalist spirit fostered by his predecessor. Some are either going further, and declaring that his show of humility is all faked, probably out of personal pride. A few are even declaring this to be one of the greatest disasters in recent years. Regardless of the fervor of their criticism, however, the one constant is that they all fear what Francis is going to do next.
Ordinarily, such personal, non-political opinions are no concern of the Royal Family. This opinion, however, has become so widespread among those whose liturgical views match those prevailing within the Kingdom that I believe a statement should be made.

My statement to those concerned about Pope Francis is simple: have a little faith. Do not let your trust in God waver because the leadership of the Church is not doing what you would prefer! Do not lose hope over a few apparent mistakes of the clerical hierarchy! But rather, have faith in God, for he has said that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against us. Trust in the infallibility granted to the Magisterium by the Graces of God; for if you only believe in said infallibility when it matches your preference, then you do not believe in it at all.
Moreover, there is another element, and that is that one should have faith in his leaders. Consider, for a moment, the Pope's position. Consider the hundreds of millions of Catholics across all seven continents that look to him to lead them out of darkness and in the movements of light. Consider the hundreds of bishops that he must deal with politically as well as spiritually. Consider the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the SSPX, and every other heretical group showing a possibility of reunion with the Church. Consider the billions of heathens in need of salvation. Consider the secular media that hates everything he stands for. Consider all these things, meditate upon them for a time, and when you're done, ask yourself, "Could I deal with that?" Do you think that you would make a good Pope? Do you think that you could stand before God at your Judgment and make a satisfactory accounting of what you did for each and every one of those groups? Because if you don't, please minimize your criticism of the man who is doing what you couldn't.

I do not agree with what Pope Francis is doing. It's not what I expected, it's not what I hoped for, and it's certainly not what I would have done in his place; but that probably means that I am wrong. Maybe we need a new wave of evangelization. Maybe we need the public image of the Church revolutionized so that the millions of progressives who would never look twice at the teachings of a supposedly corrupt and stagnant Church actually have a chance of being converted. Maybe we need more charitable action. I don't know. As a matter of fact, I can't know. I don't have the information, or the experience, or the graces, or the responsibility to shoulder, or the world to think about; so I simply cannot judge the Pope's actions except in the roughest and broadest of strokes. And I can almost guarantee that you can't either.

So please, traditionalists and liturgical conservatives of the world, restrain yourselves. Keep vigilance against the spirit of modernism, that dictates that what is popular is what is right, and anyone could make a good leader. Remember that the Church is not a democracy, and that you are simply not qualified to make judgments about her leadership. Don't let your criticism get out of hand. Don't give in to the temptation to pridefully despair. Maintain respect for the dignity of the Papal Office, because every time you fail to do so, the modernism you hate wins another small victory.

Prince Theodore

Last night Queen Jennifer gave birth to Prince Theodore. Mother and son are healthy and resting.

Constitution Day is coming!

The First of April is Constitution Day, when we celebrate the finalization of the Constitution. We will publish Queen Jennifer's Edanian dessert recipe (chocolate trifle with yellow cake). A nice yellow cake with chocolate frosting is also traditional.

Monarchy as Distributist Government; a precis

   The Church has repeatedly supported both Monarchy and the tenets conveniently called Distributism. While this implies that Monarchy is Distributist, how is this specifically the case?

The core concepts of Distributism are

1) Private ownership of property is both good and a right

2) All arrangements, including business and labor arrangements, should be made freely

3) Leadership should be as local and personal as possible; these two thing demand that it also be as small as possible

4) Utopia is impossible.

How does Monarchy meet these criteria while, say, a Republic does not?

Private Property: Private ownership of property is a good because it makes the owner responsible for his property, leading him to learn and grow from its care. An owner's personal interest will lead him to make property more productive, improving society as a whole directly and indirectly. On the other hand, communal ownership of property leads to the Tragedy of the Commons; this is the oft-proven fact that when people own something jointly they eventually deplete it even as they are aware that this depletion hurts everyone, including themselves.

As was pointed out by the Libertarian/Minarchist theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his book 'Democracy: The God that Failed' Democracy is, effectively, the joint ownership of the means of government. He argues, persuasively, that the Tragedy of the Commons is as inherent to Democratic governments as it is to the world's fisheries. Democracy, he argues, is doomed to self-destruction by its very nature.

He goes on to demonstrate that Monarchy is the private ownership of the means of government; the monarch's own self-interest will drive the development of government to be more efficient and more productive overall. While just as a farm may have a bad owner who does not maintain it a kingdom may have a poor king, over time the nature of Monarchies is to improve so long as they do not become democratic and the nature of Democracies is to degrade until they collapse.

Nobles within a Monarchy are the 'local owners'; they are the 'personal owners of the local forms of government' and have the same benefits (vested interests in improving govnerment, etc.) as the monarch.

Free Arrangement: While the most obvious versions of agreements between people and groups are business contracts (private individuals and groups) and treaties (governments) they also include such seemingly-ephemeral ideas as the Social Contract. From Grotius to Rawls theorists have argued that the source of governmental authority has been a social contract existing between the citizen and the leader or government.

When a government is forced to accept a treaty against its will it is typically called a surrender. When a person is forced into labor against their will and are unable to quit, it is typically called slavery. Yet when a person born into a Democratic society is forced to accept an unwritten, implicit social contract with no chance to refuse it this is typically simply not addressed. Proudhon, Hume, Spooner, and other theorists have pointed out that in the absence of actual consent such a 'social contract' is at best a convenient fiction.

Within a Monarchy, however, the contract (or oath of fealty) is explicit and voluntary. This means that the arrangement (or contract, or oath) is made freely and by full consent. Likewise, oaths of fealty with local aristocrats are still explicit and voluntary.

Local and Personal: While Democracy claims to be 'rule by the people' in actuality Democracies fall to Moore's Laws of Bureaucracies, Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, and Parkinson's Law. To sum up those theories, over time Democracies become more and more bureaucratic and remote from the people. The reasons for this are simple and inherent to Democracy; politicians are transient but institutions are not, so bureaucracies must exist within a Democracy simply to get things done. As the various 'laws' above point out, over time bureaucracies naturally expand in size, influence, and insulation from outside pressures eventually existing merely to propagate themselves and to increase their own size and power. Eventually the bureaucracies have such influence that the transient politicians are too dependent upon them to reform them; the 'power of the people' is then resident in unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

Even before this state of affairs politicians are relatively remote. Their transience means that they are not capable of a permanent attachment to the roles and duties of any office. Indeed, election processes may mean that they are focused on being elected during the entirety of their tenure in office!

Within a Monarchy, however, the costs of a bureaucracy come directly from the wealth of the monarch and nobles, meaning the owners of the means of government have very incentive to avoid and control bureaucracy. Indeed, with a robust aristocracy you can effectively avoid bureaucracy and have direct interactions with the local ruler (petitioning your local baron in person) and effecting change (petitioning the higher lord directly) as opposed to the impersonal interactions of Democracy (interacting with an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy and only being able to complain via voting in the next election and hoping your vote will be enough to elect a new politician and that the new politicians will be interested in and capable of reforming the bureaucracy).

No Utopia: Monarchies face the normal checks and balances of life; a particularly bad king will be deposed by the nobles, his own family, or the people. Bad nobles face the same as well as removal by the king. But since the wealth and prestige of the monarch and nobles is directly related to how well their subjects are doing self-interest itself ameliorates the likelihood of a poor rulers.

So, as you can see, Monarchy is naturally Distributist.

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away
-Shelley

What is Religion?

(From Prince Jonathan)

A great deal of confusion in the modern world comes from the meaning of the word, “religion.” For it seems that no one can quite agree what it is. There are often situations encountered where three groups will be debating religion, and all three will differ on how they would define the word. Even worse, there is often conflict between the different members of a certain philosophy, so that some will inadvertently find themselves agreeing more with their nominal antitheses than with their brethren.
This confusion stems primarily from the Protestant Reformation. All it took was for Luther and Henry VIII to found their own religions based upon a corruption of existing doctrine, and then before long there were dozens of groups redefining just about everything, up to and including religion itself. This was exacerbated greatly by the French Revolution, which tried to make itself the enemy of all religion; and to an even greater but far more subtle extent by the American Revolution, as shall be discussed later.
So what is religion? How must the word be defined? Is it not obviously one's belief on the existence and nature of God? Or perhaps it means one's opinion on the supernatural in general? Maybe it consists of the many distinct categories of worship and conception of the divine? Perhaps it is a cultural construct, nothing more than a set of stories passed down that sometimes influence a person's actions? Or is it a mere viewpoint, such as one might hold on politics or economics?

No, none of these things fit the bill. None of them are the right key for our lock. For how is it that Lutheranism and Calvinism are different? Or, alternatively, how is it that the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in America is the same as the Eastern Rite in Greece? Why can the Sunni and the Shiites never get along; why are the different flavors of Buddhism still the same thing; how are different religions divided?
In truth, what a religion is is a complete worldview. A conception of reality and how one's life should be lived. It is not one's opinion upon whether or not God exists, but one's opinion upon all things metaphysical. What one's life should be lived for, how society should be ordered, what good and evil are; all are questions answered by one's religion. To be of a religion is not just to accept what they say about God and to attend their worship when told, but to accept a complete philosophy of life as your own.
Thus, atheism is actually a religion. A family of religions more accurately, as an atheist might still be a dedicated communist, progressive, anarchist, conservative, et cetera; and all these things differ from each other as strongly as Mormonism from Judaism. No one can not have a religion, or even oppose organized religion; everybody has one, regardless of whether they believe in the Divine or not.

When you think of it this way instead of the way most people do these days, the implications are powerful. Let us take as our first example the current struggle over religious freedom in the United States of America. To boil a nuanced political conflict down to a manageable paragraph, what is happening is that the United States' government is attempting to simultaneously dictate that religious institutions must pay for things against their moral code, and affirm that the United States has freedom of religion. Worship and belief has been divorced from how one lives one's life. You can have whatever religion you want, except in public.
Of course, this is just continuing a fine tradition stretching back to the American Revolution. America was born with a complete religion of freedom, tolerance, exceptionalism, and Puritanical morals, but also with a claimed freedom of religion. Even in her infancy, she kept a strong code of religion in the public sphere, and anyone who wanted to be politically or publicly active in any way had to conform to this. American history shows us the atheistic religion of American Liberalism attacking other religions to overcome and replace them again and again, in Maryland, Utah, the states annexed from Mexico, and so on.

But there is another, more important example we should look at. Through the lens of a proper understanding of religion, let us look at the Apostles' Creed. If you are Catholic, take a pause for a moment and recite the prayer to yourself now. Now, think about it; by saying this prayer earnestly, you are saying that you firmly believe in the entirety of what the Church teaches. And the Church is a religion.
It is not just an affirmation of God's existence and Christ's divinity, but a statement that includes allegiance to the morality, goals, and dictates of the Church. To say the Creed with true earnestness, you must build your life around the laws and worship of God as the Church decrees. You must give no thought or troth to Liberalism, Americanism, Gnosticism, or any religion that is not the Church. You must adhere to a code that carries through to all aspects of one's life, public and private, familial and political, at church and outside of it. To be Catholic (or of any religion) is not just to attend mass on Sundays, attend confession often, say grace before meals, and pray a decade of the rosary every night; but it is also to centre every aspect of your existence and everything you do around God and His Laws.
So the question must be asked: is Catholicism your belief, or is it your religion?

An Observation on Culture

[From Mr. Burke, citizen]

I was reading an article that was alluding to the supposed injustice done to pagan culture and society by Christians replacing it with the birth of Christ. As I was reading it I was of course shaking my head. As a believer in the Gospel I honestly have no problems taking things from other cultures and making it Christian in order to save souls.Wedding rings? Christmas trees? Holidays? Crosses? Fish? The Sun? Its all fair game I say.

But then I realized a peculiar phenomena.

How often do we hear about the outrage we Christians have over the secular world co-opting Christmas for their own godless purposes? Removing all the Christian connotations from Christmas because it doesn't fall in line with its dogma? Well, this is obviously no different than what the Church did to paganism. She took many of its symbols and mannerisms and purged them of all common associations with its original subject matter. Now to be certain this revelation shouldn't be anything new or shocking to anybody, but the dilemma still remains as to why Christians find it so intolerable to see their traditions taken by an opposite philosophical view for the advancement of said view when Christianity is basically by definition called to do just that. To Christianize the world and bring the Gospel into everything we do. 

I'd imagine other people who are Christians who might stumble on these sorts of apparent contradictions and hypocrisies might give their worldview a second thought and may even lose their faith and join the ranks of non-confrontational, lets-all-get-along agnostics who don't want to put a pin point on anything relating to a truth claim or a position other than saying they don't have a position. However, I don't look at it this way.

I think Christians have every right to be outraged over seeing their traditions co-opted. On the same note, I think every pagan had every right to be outraged over seeing their worldly traditions taken to represent what they didn't initially intend it to be. No, not because Christmas or paganism has some kind of copyrights to them that we are violating, but because we are afraid that the truth of something may be distorted through the other side's message. I don't want Christmas being taken by secularism because I think we have some kind of special right to the holiday. I don't want that because Christmas reveals a truth that transcends the date or the holiday itself. To diminish that diminishes the chances of the lesson the celebration is supposed to impart to those who celebrate it.

I can hear a few of you say, "But what about the pagans? Don't they have a right to be just as angry over THEIR truth being 'diminished' as you say? And what is truth anyway? I mean none of us can really say whats true and whats not ,right?"

The pagans had their view of the truth. I'm not saying people don't have relative views on truth. This is most certainly the case, but I don't make the claim that it makes the truth relative. I think its quite a logical claim to say that either one of us is correct or we are all wrong. I most defiantly won't make the moronic claim that we are all somehow "equally right" or just right relative to ourselves. See, modern people today, secularists and Christians alike, are shocked over confrontation. They are just dumbfounded over the idea that people take a different stance than them. They are obsessed with the idea of persecution and a sort of validation of their worldview over undergoing some kind of agonizing ordeal for their beliefs. As if people who hold two entirely different perspectives would in no way on God's green Earth come into conflict be it violent or non-violent. But you see this is the phobia of modern man. At some point a line must be drawn in the sand. I stand on this side, you stand on that side. When your side and my side collide and talk becomes empty words then it is time for us to draw our swords like men and whoever emerges victorious shall have the final say regardless on whether or not we are correct in our world views or not. I applaud the battle raged over the idea of truth. I'd expect no different from something that believes it holds the candle in the darkness to shine it in all the unseen places. Truly there are times when things cannot be settled by words or the political process or the internal mechanisms of society. Sometimes you must raise your fists against the enemy and keep them from snuffing out the light of truth. The Crusader must rise up against the Jihadist, the French Resistance fighter against the Nazi occupier, and so on.

For those of you who might be thinking I am advocating a genocide of people who don't agree with my views you are mistaken. Battles can be won by other means than the tip of a sword. But know that a battle is what most certainly will take place. My view and your view won't sit next you each other in harmony if they are in stark opposition. I will charge your flank with my ideas. I will sneak attack you with an argument. I will launch a full frontal assault on your traditions with my traditions and not stop until either the war is won or I am struck down and I expect you to do the same. Only a coward wouldn't fight for their ideas. But war is not the end in itself. The war is waged to end the war. To bring truth to those who don't have it or those who are simply wrong. Don't feel offended that Christmas or Christianity is being infected by an opposing force and sit there crying over fake injustices. Put on your armor, unsheathe your sword, hold the line, and push them back! God made no compromise with Satan. Good makes no compromise with evil. Truth makes no compromise with lies.

A Short Note on Threat Evaluation

  The media is seemingly constantly awash with stories of dread; from the 'fiscal cliff' to the 'debt crisis' to various acts of violence and political turmoil we seem to be inundated with threats. Leaders of democracies, self-appointed intellectuals, and various flavors of activists seem to be constantly 'doing something' about these threats.

But very little seems to change over time. Despite the sweat, treasure, tears, and blood spilled over these issues we seem to be frozen in a sort of status quo in many critical areas.

This is because of a critical error made at the very beginning; a failure of threat evaluation. By this I mean, bluntly, that the vast majority of people in positions of influence are too trapped within their paradigm to properly evaluate threats to society, leading them to vast amounts of waste. The result is true threats are ignored and solving phantom threats produces phantom results.

Here is a blunt example of what I mean.

A Stone Age tribe is wandering near the edge of their territory when they encounter a group of strangers. These strangers seem much life the tribe; they wear face paint (although the patterns are different) and matching clothing and are armed with spears or clubs. The leader of the tribe counts only 6 strangers, as opposed to the 9 tribesmen with him. The man he thinks leads the strangers is armed with a club, like the chief, as a sign of authority.

Thw chief evaluates the strangers as a possible threat. While they are fewer in number, the strangers are taller and broader than the tribesmen, which could be a factor. The strangers' spears have unusual points – their spear points are very long and serrated along one edge; they would inflict terrible wounds! And their spears are short and heavy, obviously designed for the big strangers to use them as clubs as well as thrusting weapons.

But his tribesmen have long spears designed to thrust or to throw – they will be able to keep the bigger strangers at bay. And each tribesman carried two spears – they can throw one, killing or crippling a few , and then surround the rest easily. The chief also looks at his own two-handed war club, a massive weapon inlaid with sharp stones. The leader of the strangers has only a small hand club, more a symbol of leadership than a weapon!

His threat evaluation over, the chief strides forward confidently, ready to cow the strangers and, if necessary, destroy them.

But the leader of the strangers is also evaluating the situation. His squad of Royal Marines has bayonets fixed and full clips in their assault rifles. He has his 9mm pistol out, just in case. He looks at the 10 men his squad stumbled upon with their primitive speaks and no body armor and strides forward confidently....

Trapped within his paradigm, the chieftain is evaluating the wrong threat. Indeed, he cannot even begin to understand what threats he is facing.

Many leaders of the world, self-described intellectuals, journalists, and policy makers are in similar positions; so caught up within their own paradigm that they cannot grasp the true dangers staring them in the face. Between a false dichotomy of Left and Right, a rejection of objective morality, the belief that certain facts are merely 'social constructs', and the various national and regional concepts (such as Americans thinking Libertarians are conservative) this blindness to true threats is, perhaps, inevitable.

This is why Edan is sometimes slow to respond, or takes a seemingly contrarian position (or no position). We must focus on real threats and on understanding what they are and where they are coming from.  

Adversarial Transition

[from Prince Jonathan]
There are many, many differences between today's society and the ideal Catholic society, and all these differences are sad things. Abortion, adultery, a twisted version of freedom that must conform itself to the materialistic agenda of the world around us, these things we all know. However, I think that there is something that belongs to that very same list that goes mostly unknown, much to society's detriment. This is the fact that relationship after relationship and bond after bond has been transformed from a cooperative relationship into an antagonistic one. This shift has been silent and unnoticed, never happening openly and only striking one place at a time, but it has happened.
Just think of the many roles which should be helpful ones based upon love, or at least respect, but are now thought of as being adversarial against each other. Teenage children are now thought of as being inherently rebellious and opposed to the rule of their parents; indeed, think of all the depictions of children of all ages being in direct opposition to their parents, teachers, and other authority figures. The government and the people are now placed constantly at odds with each other, even though the first should only serve and protect the second. Employers and employees are now at each other's throats through corporate layoffs and the union system, even though they should be allies in the workplace. Contraception and abortion have made parents into the sworn enemies of their children and each other. Through spiritualism and new age beliefs, faith has been, in some cases, turned against religion. Even love has become a carefully calculated tool through the sexual revolution.
Every relationship that should be supportive is now antagonistic, every bond that should be of love or respect is now a matter of advantage; friendship is a competition and romance is war in the twisted world in which we live. And why is this? How could such a warped state of affairs ever come about? Materialism. Atheistic materialism, that is the source of this abomination. If there is no such thing as ethics or morality, then why should we work together? If love is just an expression of the animal drive, then why should we not use it to our own advantage? If there is no God, then there is no reason to do anything in life but look out for yourself.
So it has come to pass, slowly but surely, that all relationships are now thought of in terms of self. What can I gain? What good is this to me? Where is my advantage? I disagree. I want that. No thought is paid to the other members of the relationship, let alone society as a whole. There is no reason to, it is the survival of the fittest, after all; why should the weak and vulnerable be aided?
This is a disastrous philosophy to be so widely held. It is the operating doctrine of warlords, criminals, and tyrants; not a real society. All that civilization is is the side effect of people working together. If we want art and philosophy, peace and stability, morality and freedom; then we must work with and for other people. If not for the cooperations and commonality of society, then the Way Things Are will transition to the strong ruling the weak. This is the basic order of things, the animal order of things; those with the advantage taking whatever they want from those without it. But this isn't the proper order of things. The proper order of things is that mandated by both God and conscience, the rule of empathy and morality. To make all things revolve around one's self is to abandon humanity and ethics for the brutal existence of an animal.
Even if we do not do this ourselves, we can still feel the effects everywhere in modern society. This disordered way of life must be opposed as strongly as contraception and homosexuality, although it is somewhat more difficult to fight against than those two things. It is certainly illicit to try and outlaw a way of thinking, after all. Still, it cannot be allowed to flourish. It is a way of life inimical to the Will of God, and we must oppose it.
Perhaps the best way to fight this rise of the adversarial is to preach by example. The more we show dedication and real respect and love, the more we make businesses and governments the allies of the average person, and the more we show support to those in need as part of our overall lifestyle, the more young people we can talk out of accepting the antagonistic paradigm and the more practitioners of it we can convert. For, after all, it is a hollow philosophy devoid of meaning to make everything about me. It will not stand up long to real exposure to a more full and beautiful way of looking at the world. The only true danger to civilization is that these philosophies of self become so common that we forget all else, so the only good way to fight these battles is to act like you've already won.

September 11th, October 7th and Solidarity

By HRM Richard
+JMJ+

  Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Rosary, a feast first instituted by His Holiness Pope Pius V as the Feast of Our Lady of Victory to commemorate the victory of the Catholic League over Ottoman forces at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7th, 1571 AD, a victory attributed to the intercession of God at the behest of Our Lady after millions of Catholics prayed the rosary for the protection of Christendom against the Ottoman raiders and pirates.
  This victory came just 6 years after the victory at the Siege of Mata on September 11th, 1565 AD, where the Knights of St. John and their local militia forces defeated the vastly-larger Ottoman forces which had attacked them, setting the stage for a renewed Catholic hope and for the success at Lepanto.  In both cases the larger, better-equipped Ottoman forces were defeated by Catholic forces through determination and and luck so great as to be Providential.
  The two victories, both almost half a millennia in the past, represent Solidarity in both its most intimate and most widespread forms. The Knights of St. John were largely alone, virtually abandoned by European forces which assumed they could not possibly win such a lop-sided battle. But their devotion to God, to their Order, and to their mission allowed the Knights to triumph. This was Solidarity at the intimate level, almost as a family, as a few hundred men drew together as a single unit. This demonstration of Solidarity as esprit de corps inspired Europe.
  A handful of years later Lepanto represented the other extreme of Solidarity - despite vast differences in education and wealth, native language and homeland, Catholics all over Europe drew together to support the forces at Lepanto. Millions of people were united in a common task toward a common goal in a show of Solidarity that virtually erased the differences between German and Frenchman, commoner and noble to let them identify as Catholic. Where the Knights were in a single place, the Catholics supporting Lepanto were separated by vast distances yet united in a very real way.
  This is critical to understanding what we mean when we say that territoriality is not important to Edan in the way it is essential to nation-states. Edan is based upon Solidarity; upon shared values, shared morals and shared ethics; upon shared culture, shared goals, and shared laws. In a very real way, Edanians are directly connected even though we have not yet met in person.
  Where Edanians are, there is Edan.