America just celebrated its 4th of July this past week, a holiday which, I must admit, is fun to watch. It does fill me with sadness to know how little Americans know of their own holiday and the origins of their own country. Today, after a pause to avoid direct offense of Americans too close to their national holiday, I wish to examine their Declaration of Independence and the history around it.
The American colonists had greatly helped precipitate the Seven Years War, a global conflict that resulted in Great Britain incurring massive debt and greatly straining relations with the Native Americans. In an effort to both rebuild relations with the Native Americans and to curb the tensions (mainly about fur trading and such) that led to the Seven Years War the King forbade colonists from settling the Ohio Country.
This did not sit well with a number of prominent colonists who had invested heavily in expanded trade in the Ohio Country. Indeed, this profit-seeking is what had led to the armed conflicts with French forces in French territory which triggered the Seven Years War! Another thing which many colonists despised was paying taxes, even though these taxes had been levied to cover the costs of the war which they triggered and which was largely fought on their behalf. Be that as it may, the Colonists struggled to avoid all taxes and duties and began to resort to smugglers for many staples.
The Colonies had long been a hotbed of lawlessness and they soon elevated criminals to a position of local prominence. John Hancock was a notorious smuggler and scofflaw. When he was arrested for smuggling riots broke out amongst the colonists who agitated for his freedom so they could continue to receive their illegal goods! When the British government determined a way to provide high-quality tea (a major item in the colonies) at a price even lower than smuggled tea while still earning money for the government. The response? Hancock funded an attack that dumped this low-cost, high-quality tea into the harbor so that colonists would be forced to purchase his more-expensive, less-quality tea. How did the colonists respond to this criminal-funded terrorist act that was aimed at fleecing them? They still celebrate the Boston Tea Party, as they call it, as a blow for freedom!
Hancock was involved with the creation of the Declaration, as was Benjamin Franklin (a philanderer, scofflaw, and con man who notoriously took the King's pay to inform Parliament and the Crown of the mood of the colonies then played both sides against each other for his own gain) and a number of other smugglers, tax evaders, and general renegades. But the selection of Thomas Jefferson to actually write the document was a perfect example of the corrupt nature of the group involved and the lionization of Jefferson by Americans to this very day is astonishing.
In the colonies living beyond your means was common but Jefferson took it to heights that even his contemporaries found amazing. Despite having a large, productive plantation Jefferson was perpetually buried under the debt incurred by his lavish spending on food, wine, clothes, and perpetual building projects. Despite taking a full 5th of the endowment of a college where he was trustee he still left behind so much debt his heirs were forced to sell the bulk of his estate to cover his outstanding loans and bills.
But how did these smugglers, tax evaders, con men, and other reprobates convince others, usually common men, to fight for them and their wealth?
Those not already on board through greed were recruited by lies and bigotry.
The Seven Years War had had a lot to do with French territory west of the Appalachians. After the war Britain now controlled that territory as well as formerly French Quebec. The Native Americans of the Ohio Valley had much better relations with the French of Quebec and were more hostile to the colonists to the East. The newly-conquered Quebecois maintained their relations with the Ohio Country. Further, many of the native leaders of the Ohio Country had rather mixed views of who controlled their territory. To maintain the peace, build better relations with the native rulers and mollify the conquered French of Quebec the King of England sensibly gave the Quebecois control of the Ohio Country and relations with the natives.
The leaders of the American Revolution cast this as the prelude to - Catholics! Yes, many of the Founding Fathers blatantly used a fear of Catholics settling in the Ohio Country to whip up anti-British fervor with Paul revere drawing a cartoon showing the treaty that gave Quebec authority over the Ohio Country being co-signed by Catholic bishops and the Devil.
Combined with such events as the Boston Massacre (where soldiers fired on an armed mob that was assaulting them but which the revolutionaries portrayed as an unprovoked attack) some colonists were ready to rebel against their own king. The Declaration of Independence was meant to be the paper that justified what was to happen next - treason.
It fails.
The Declaration of Independence is singularly bad at what it purports to do, justify treason. Indeed, I have never understood why anyone who has read it thinks Jefferson is a good writer (there is a difference between 'florid' and 'good').
The opening is wordy but weak, essentially just an overly-long statement that the Declaration will explain why the colonies are justified in committing treason. His statement of basic rights is rather terse, considering the lead in, and unconvincing. And his contractual theory of government makes no sense - after all, the majority of colonists wished to remain subject tot he British Crown! If he truly believes in a contractual governmental theory this is just silly.
Jefferson then goes on to admit that treason is bad and that any rebellion must be well-justified with about 200 words when 20 would do.
And then the whining begins.
Jefferson then lists reasons he thinks the King is a terrible, no-good, very bad tyrant:
1) He vetoes laws. Well, under the parliamentarian system of the day, the King could, yes, veto laws
2) The King doesn't rubber stamp what the colonial leaders want. well, why should he? The colonies were under Royal charter and needed the King's assent to enact their own local rules. If the King declined it was no different than in Britain with the Parliament!
3) The King continues to treat colonies differently than parliamentary districts in England. Of course he does, they are different things. Indeed, originally the colonists were eager to be different because that meant they would have lower taxes!
4) I don't like where the King calls parliament and other such groups. Really? 'It is far' is a pro-treason argument?
5) He dissolves our local legislative groups when they refuse to enforce the law. I think this is one of the funnier complaints. Why? Well, it shows that even if the colonies didn't have seats in Parliament they did have local version of Parliament (which is also admitted above, twice) and that these could pass laws with the King's consent (again, already admitted) and that they had refused to obey the King's alw, so they had at least some authority. In other words, some of the complaints in the Declaration nullify many of the other complaints. "We don't have access to Parliament!' vs. 'He won't let our local Parliaments do whatever they want!'.
6) When the local legislatures refuse to enforce the King's laws he doesn't let us create another legislature just like it right away. Well, why would he? If the local legislature keeps being run by crooks, smugglers, and rebels why would he let them return to power?
7) The King is controlling immigration and territorial expansion. So the King is controlling access to and the growth of his colonies? How dare he! I mean, its not like we just had a massive war on 4 continents about improper territorial expansion! Oh,we did? well, so what! We want to do whatever we want anyway!
8) The King won't let us have our own judges. Well, considering the local legislatures are refusing to enforce the King's laws why would he expect local judges to be any better? I;d keep sending in judges I trust from home, too!
9) The King is in control of the tenure and pay of his judges. So the fact that the King's judges report to and are paid by the King is an issue? Why? And how is it different from 8, 6, 2, and 1, anyway?
10) The King has sent tax collectors, customs agents, and other people to enforce the laws we refuse to enforce. Of course he did! What else should he do?
11) The King has soldiers in the colonies even though the local legislatures don't want them here. First, Jefferson is again admitting that the colonies have local legislatures, obviating a lot of the whining about seats in parliament. Second, the colonies are on the edge of a vast wilderness full of hostile groups and they just finished fighting a massive war. Third, since some colonists are openly urging armed rebellion, what do you expect?
12) The military answers to the King, not the local legislatures. You mean the local legislatures that refuse to enforce the King's laws? The same ones that started the Seven Years War with colonial forces attacking French troops from ambush?
13) Our local legislatures can't override Parliament. OK, this gives a little more weight to complaints about 'no seats in parliament', but why would colonies expect anything different than this?
14) The King has soldiers here. Yeah, we heard you when you said that in 11.
15) Soldiers are subject to the King and British law and Judges, not local laws and judges. Well, of course they are! And after the fiasco of the Boston Massacre, who can blame them?
16) We can't trade with whomever we want. You are British trade colonies founded and protected at great cost to create trade with and for Britain. We know from the Seven Years War that the colonists had no trouble trading with the French during a war with the French started by the colonies, but that doesn't make it right.
17) We don't like paying taxes. Who does? But that war you started isn't going to pay for itself! And remember that bit about how the colonies were founded by the King at great expense?
18) Some trials aren't with a jury. OK - but how many? Are they a particular type, like contract disputes that are usually clear and a jury is only a chance for the guilty to emotionally sway other people? And is this a reason to commit treason?
18) Sometimes we are put on trial in England. England is the source of sovereignty and the place of superior courts, so why is this a surprise?
19) We don't like Quebec. Quebec was just conquered and is formerly French - of course it has slightly different laws than a British colony!
20) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. I am unsure how many different ways he can ineffectually restate this same complaint.
21) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. At least once more!
22) When we really, really refuse to obey the King;s laws he sends in soldiers. Jefferson keeps coming back to just a few points and repeats them in different ways over and over without making a real point.
23) He is putting down armed rebellion with force. Not a surprise, really, and I wouldn't expect any less.
24) He plans to continue to put down armed rebellion with force. See point 23.
25) Some British colonists are pressed into service to fight other British colonists who are in armed rebellion against the King. See point 23, again.
26) We are being attacked by loyalists and Native Americans, and the Native Americans are scary. In regards to the loyalists, see point 23 yet again. And as for Native Americans, how is that justification for treason?
27) We have been nice so far and the King has been mean. Remember, the Sons of Liberty would routinely tar and feather the King's agents (being tarred and feathered usually killed the target, if you didn't know that) and others they would outright lynch. The Boston Massacre was incited by the Sons of Liberty bringing in hundreds of armed men to attack soldiers. the Boston Tea Party was the agents of smugglers destroying government property to force people to resort to smuggled goods. If vandalism, riots, assault, terror, arson, and outright murder are "Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms" I have no idea what Jefferson considers violent!
28) No matter how much we threatened the King he still insisted on his laws being enforced in his colonies. I don't know why I would need to point out the issues with this.
Jefferson then concludes with a statement that God is on the side of the murderous, seditious, tax-evading, scofflaw traitors.
The Declaration obviously fails in its attempts to justify treason and war. With its rambling style and muddled statements I am also puzzled as to why anyone thought it an elegant document.
Jul 8, 2013
Jun 17, 2013
Virtue, Masculinity, and the Manosphere [by Prince Jonathan]
There are few political concepts which truly anger me; whether this is to my pride or to my shame depends upon your point of view. The definition of all morality in terms of freedom angers me, attempts to paint history in modern light irritate me, serious errors about the basic teachings of the Church frustrate me, and the increasing hypersexualization of the culture fills me with rage. But what angers me the most is the alpha-male/beta-male concept, and the Manosphere discussing it. This concept arouses my particular ire because it is one of those subtle, seductive evils which builds lies on top of truth so that they cannot be spotted, and has thereby succeeded in insinuating itself into many bastions of Catholicism and Traditionalism.
These corrupted centres of Tradition are known collectively as the Manosphere, and I consider them one of the greatest threats to authentic Traditionalism and Catholic Culture. Even leaving out those groups which embody promiscuity and nihilism, the Manosphere is still critically flawed in thought. It is barbaric, modern, and doomed to failure; although perhaps not through any fault of its own. It is flawed because its foundation is flawed, and that foundation is the alpha-male/beta-male concept.
To sum this concept up: it divides men into two camps, the first, more common group being the betas, passive men who act with neither initiative nor leadership; the second, rarer group being the alphas, who take the lead and move with self-confidence. It goes on to say that since the essence of masculinity is action and women are attracted to men who take the lead, alphas are superior to their beta cousins. Indeed, it is often stated that only alpha men deserve to find love, since only they act as men ought.
The Manosphere is built upon this concept, and dedicates itself to cultivating alpha-ness; alphitas, if you will. It attempts to build up this alphitas in its own members and in the Culture as a whole by spreading the word and attacking the passivity of the modern world. It encourages men to take an active role, to date aggressively, to not be afraid to confess love, to not back down from threats, and to comport themselves well.
What really makes the alpha-male/beta-male concept frightening and dangerous is the same thing that makes anarchism frightening and dangerous: the fact that it is built upon a core of truth. Passive men really are the majority in our present day. Those who refuse to act in a masculine way and still expect to be treated as men really are dominant in the Culture.
It takes only a bit of thought to make it patently obvious where this trend comes from. We live in an anomalous age, and one of the most dangerous anomalies is the ever-increasing passivity forced upon children by the Societal Engine. Passivity is the water that must be swum in in the public school system and the political correctness that it has birthed. Girls have a capacity to resist this, due to their greater innate affinity for passiveness giving them strength to resist its use as a weapon. Boys, on the other hand, have been ruined. Passivity is the antithesis of masculinity, and males have almost no ability to work within passive structures. Thus, authentic manhood is ruined, and has been ruined for generations; with only a scant handful of survivors, and even fewer men lucky enough to avoid the issue entirely.
The Manosphere, therefore, is a rebellion against the modern destruction of masculinity; and inasmuch as this is true, it must be praised. The Manosphere is an attempt to take manhood back and fight against the feminization pressing in on all sides in the modern world. It holds as its cause the defence of coming generations from the mistakes of today, and this cause is most laudable. Indeed, it is a cause necessary for the survival of civilization.
Why, then, do I hate the Manosphere? Because it has failed! It has made one of the most fundamental moral mistakes, and in doing so has made something just as inimical to masculinity as the passivity it hates. In the absence of a firm tradition, in the absence of any sort of precedent, and in the absence of guiding religion; the Manosphere has attempted to define masculinity as a negative.
The alpha-male/beta-male concept does an excellent job of defining what it fights against, but it does not define what it fights for, thereby causing masculinity to be defined as the absence of passivity. This is a disaster! The opposite of being a follower is not being a leader, it is being a rebel; the opposite of loneliness is not love, it is promiscuity; the opposite of being shy is not being outgoing, it is being a boor; the opposite of shame is not honour, it is arrogance; the opposite of being a beta is not being a man, it is being an alpha.
All these things are obvious in the Manosphere; one must only look to see.
So what is masculinity, then? Why, we all know what it is! It is what the Church has always said it is. It is the prudence and justice to know how to act, and the temperance and fortitude to be able to act; all in a masculine manner, which is to say, in leading and in sacrificing. Men are meant to lead, and they are called to sacrifice themselves for others; therefore, being able to do these things virtuously is the epitome of manhood.
That is masculinity. It is simple, and it comes naturally, but it can only be perfected by God. It is the call to step into that area of the world men are meant to fill, and to do it well. All that this is is a particular application of the virtues. It is therefore blissfully simple and terribly difficult, and that is its beauty; because it is, in the end, a tangible thing, not a mere absence.
May 6, 2013
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.
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.
Apr 18, 2013
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.
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.
Apr 4, 2013
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.
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.
Mar 7, 2013
Prince Theodore
Last night Queen Jennifer gave birth to Prince Theodore. Mother and son are healthy and resting.
Mar 1, 2013
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.
Feb 20, 2013
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.
Feb 2, 2013
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
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
Feb 1, 2013
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?
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?
Jan 4, 2013
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.
Jan 2, 2013
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)