May 24, 2012
Problems with Nation-States, part 2
[From HRH Jonathan]
Let us now return to our discussion of nation-states, for that issue has not been concluded in part 1. I will open this second article on the matter with a pair of seemingly random questions: What does it mean to be free, and what is sovereignty? The first question will seem familiar, although the answer may be alien, and the second question will seem alien, but the answer will be very familiar. Thus I discuss them in the first place, for their meanings have been obscured by the paradigm in which we live.
What is freedom? The only word to ehich you might receive more varied answers from people is 'humanity'. Some say that it is the simple ability to travel, act, and speak as you wish. That is technically true for some definitions of freedom, but is more accurately termed liberty, and is not the form of freedom I wish to discuss. Others would say it is the ability to do whatever you want, no matter what that may be. This is called license, or more accurately within politics, anarchy, and is a mutation of the freedom I am trying to touch upon. A few people would say that freedom is independence from those that would control you. This is a fascinating answer that is far closer to the truth than than any of the others, but it is still slightly off. When referring to 'freedom' within a society it cannot be truly defined until you know the answer to the second question.
What is sovereignty? Do you know? It is in fact a word with many meanings, most of them implied. It can mean the authority of a leader, autonomy, excellence, control, or (interestingly enough) freedom from authority. So, in just one sentence the question we had so much difficulty answering (What is societal freedom?) falls into place. Sovereignty is legal control, the authority of controlling a segment of society, the purest power within society. It should be clear, then, that the only way to be truly free is to be sovereign over one's self.
How, you may be wondering, does this tie in with nation-states? Simply. Within a nation-state system it is impossible to be truly free.
Is it possible to be truly self-sovereign when you are born into citizenship? Is it possible to truly be free when the laws you abide by and the government you must obey are controlled only by place? Are you free when you must present papers and identifiers simply to travel where you wish? Are you independent enough to honestly be called a free man when you are forced into a social contract against your will? Are you sovereign when those same social contracts are implied, meaning they may change and grow at any time with no chance of control by you? No, no, no, no, and no. Indeed, throughout most of history these restrictions have been placed upon a single class of people only; slaves. Nation-states are unjust because they force people to surrender their sovereignty. Self-sovereignty is the truest measure of freedom, and not a single person possesses a scrap of it within a modern nation-state. If you cannot choose your own loyalties then you are a slave, a shift in language does not change that.
In a feudal-state, on the other hand, self-sovereignty is all that there is. Higher loyalties are established only by oath, that is; sovereignty over others is gained only by agreement. Instead of having your citizenship determined by birth, it is determined purely by who you swear to obey. The social contract is a formalized mechanic in feudalism, not an unspoken effect, which leads to increased stability because no one can disagree on what the contract entails like they do today. In feudalism free men are free not just to go where they want, say what they want, and (within reason) do what they want, they are also capable of placing their loyalties where they want, even if that is nowhere.
Feudalism is what Edan embraces. A truer form of freedom is what we strive for. The only way to become a citizen is to swear your allegiance to the King, the Constitution, and all authorities derived from them. You are not born or forced into the deal. Edan is not a place or even a system, it is an idea - an idea embodied by the people who owe their allegiance to it. Edan is wherever his citizens are because they have agreed that is so. That is the goal of Edan, a world of sovereign individuals working together. A more just, more humane world, which can only be attained by feudalism.
May 4, 2012
Problems with Nation-States, part 1
[From HRH Jonathan]
Anyone looking at Edan from the
outside, or, more properly, from the inside of the modern paradigm,
is liable to be some combination of confused, shocked, and
uncomprehending at the traits we have given our Kingdom. Male-only
suffrage has been addressed, aristocracy has been addressed, and many
of our unspoken assumptions have been addressed, but there is a
glaring omission in our discussion of Edan's paradigm; the fact that
we are not a nation-state. All modern countries that exist as more
than a scattering of refugees are nation-states, certainly the entire
first world is composed of them, and to the best of my knowledge all
other micronations have nation-statehood as their aim. But not us!
The immediate response/thought on this from most of you, the readers, is going to be a resounding, "What?" The reason for that is quite simple. Unless you are an advanced student of esoteric political theory, you may not even really know what the precise definition of a nation-state is, let alone how a country can not be one. I will address this. To describe a nation-state, I will ask you a simple question: what is a country? The most technically correct answer is, "Whatever a group of people who want to have/be a country say it is." but that is hardly an actual description.
The immediate response/thought on this from most of you, the readers, is going to be a resounding, "What?" The reason for that is quite simple. Unless you are an advanced student of esoteric political theory, you may not even really know what the precise definition of a nation-state is, let alone how a country can not be one. I will address this. To describe a nation-state, I will ask you a simple question: what is a country? The most technically correct answer is, "Whatever a group of people who want to have/be a country say it is." but that is hardly an actual description.
Throughout most of the world and
most of history, a country has been a group of people who pledge
their allegiance to a common leader, and all the assets they
collectively control. But in the mid-late colonial era Europe
encountered a problem. That definition did not work any more. The
reason for this was two-fold. First of all, they were colonial
powers, who controlled vast swaths of land and huge numbers of people
who had never granted their allegiance to anyone who controlled them
now, even when colonization was accomplished peacefully. Secondly,
and perhaps more insidiously, in many cases the common leader, the
King, had been done away with and replaced with a shifting democratic
government, leaving them with no one to pledge their allegiance to in
the first place. So they redefined their countries. Redefined them to
mean an area of land controlled by a particular government.
This had many interesting effects, some of which have been discussed here before. {that "before" should be a link to my 2011 article "Nation-states and War"} It changed the game considerably. In prior times, national borders were ill-defined, rarely more precise than, "That river marks our border," or, "Beyond the mountains it is your domain," and many countries would be mixed-together, as it were. In the north of modern-day France, for example, you could be French, Norman, or Burgundian depending entirely on what language you spoke and what allegiance you gave. There were even villages where multiple nationalities lived side by side on their identical homeland soil! Now, though, this was impossible. France and Burgundy were lines on a map; on one side you had to be French and on the other you had to be Burgundian, or else you would be kicked out for crossing to a land that wasn't "yours". Modern diplomacy is built around nation-statehood, how else can embassies work the way they do? Modern economics are built around nation-statehood, how else could international shipping even make sense? Politics, war, theory, research, laws, all subject to, and built on, nation-statehood.
So what in the world would a more traditional country look like? What would it even be called? The fact is that there are dozens of paradigms now forgotten, and all of them were dramatically different, but in the end they are all just a form of Feudalism. Not Feudalism as you almost certainly think of it, but what Feudalism actually is. A paradigm based entirely upon loyalty, where a nation exists only as its citizens. A system where nationality and citizenship were derived purely from the oaths and loyalty given by each individual. This is Edan's goal; a more natural, human system.
Such a Feudal-state is totally alien to the way things work today. Even I, who have thought about it so very much, can barely comprehend what it would look like. Citizenship would be fluid, and borders would only be closed to those who had been exiled. Things that would be totally nonsensical in a nation-state paradigm, like officers commissioning in multiple armies or areas of land going ungoverned, would be commonplace. You would need not be naturalized into citizenship, joining a country is as simple as swearing your loyalty to it. When someone was given governing authority over something, it would not be over this jagged shape on a map, but over the area between these 5 landmarks, and all the people and things within it. A more natural system, with fewer rules, not because of any active effort to be simpler, but because those few rules are all you need.
That is what Edan will look like when we become real. We will not claim a place on a map or a region of the globe, we will claim all that our citizens owe to the Kingdom. Our domain will not be a place, but a people.
Still, the question remains, why? Why would we depart so far from what is known? Why would we select this system over all the others? Because we hold it as better. A more natural system that is easier to grasp, easier to work with, and in the long run simply easier to have around. Because it is an incredibly stable paradigm, where countries cannot truly be destroyed or collapse, but just go away for a little while. And because it is the paradigm that everyone who has ever felt frustration over visa paperwork or international bureaucracy has secretly wanted. A more human system, for a more human paradigm.
Apr 30, 2012
An Essay from HRM Jennifer on Voting and Society
One of the seemingly shocking things
about the Edanian constitution is the lack of women's suffrage. King
Richard is fond of noting that it was actually his Queen who
initially insisted that women should not have the right to vote in
Edan. This statement is often met with disbelief, but in this, my
first essay as Queen, I am pleased to confirm King Richard's
remarks.
As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.
Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.
First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.
But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled. We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.
In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men. In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.
But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.
As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.
As I address some of the reasons behind my exhortations and the decisions of our King as he developed the constitution, please remember that we are speaking only of Edan. I make no assertions or assumptions about women's suffrage in America or anywhere else in our current world. Many things unique to the culture we hope to build in Edan make the lack of women's voting sensible and just in our micronation, but we do not speak for situations and cultures outside of our own.
Let me make clear that in our micronation, the limits placed upon the Edanian vote in no way impede women's dignity, human rights, or freedoms. As Edanians, and Catholics, we believe in the inherent dignity of all human beings, male and female, from conception to natural death. But the modern assumption that being equal means being the same is a fallacy that we Edanians must recognize as the evil it is.
First of all, let us remember that Edan is a constitutional monarchy. We are governed by a King who is not elected, and our local rulers are appointed by our King, not by vote. We do have an elected Senate, but the duties of these elected officials are to guarantee that the common people will always have a voice, even in the event of a tyrant or a calcified aristocracy. In fact, much of the Edanian constitution is devoted to limiting the power of elected officials while maintaining some general public forum to protect our future from being diminished or destroyed by one mad or corrupt King. So we must remember in this discussion of suffrage that an Edanian vote is not central to our governance, unlike the modern capitalistic or socialist democracies we are accustomed to.
But history has shown us that in all democracies, eventually a vote becomes something that can be bought. Bought by wealth or bought by charisma or even bought by something more nefarious, it is still subject to coercion, whether conscious or not. When every citizen has the right to vote, suddenly an entire society and culture can be bought (and made bankrupt). Or, even more frighteningly, as we see in the bipartisan America, a vote becomes "us vs. them" and true debate and progress are stifled. We believe that if we allow the voice of women in Edan to remain pure and unsullied by political infighting and the lures of coercion, Edan will have an unparalleled asset. Culturally, we will promote the ideal of a strong woman's voice, and women will be encouraged to enter into political debate and even run for office (note that in Edan, while women cannot vote, there is no restriction on women holding elected office). Knowing that we will have a chorus of individuals whose vote cannot be bought means that the ideas they put forth will have more merit, more weight, and will provide a needed balance to the necessary political wrangling that comes from the voting process.
In addition, we believe that it is important that the voting class knows that their vote isn't just a vote for themselves, but also a vote for their wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers. Even the seemingly-unfair limitation on single women will be balanced by the actions of responsible single men. In this way, a vote will not be simply a one to one trade, my vote for whatever will be given to me. A vote will become more precious and more meaningful and more forward-thinking, rather than a selfish choice based upon immediate desires. Thus, the voter will be less susceptible to the political pressures and frustrations that unfortunately prevail in the world of universal suffrage.
But why is it that women do not have the right to vote, rather than men? Because it is natural that women be the voice of reason in society, as a women's inherent nature recognizes relationship more fully. Whether mothers in fact or not, a woman's physiology and psychology are ordered toward motherhood. This allows women to see differently than a man. As Blessed John Paul II said in MULIERIS DIGNITATEM, "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and "understands" with unique intuition what is happening inside her. In the light of the "beginning", the mother accepts and loves as a person the child she is carrying in her womb. This unique contact with the new human being developing within her gives rise to an attitude towards human beings - not only towards her own child, but every human being - which profoundly marks the woman's personality. It is commonly thought that women are more capable than men of paying attention to another person, and that motherhood develops this predisposition even more." By ensuring that the voices of women cannot be purchased or influenced by those seeking her vote, Edan will be blessed with a class of women who not only have the natural attendance to relationship that allows them to more clearly see the impact of society's choices, but also can speak freely about what they see as right and just because they are not susceptible to voting pressures. In contrast, the masculine hormones and physical strength indicate that men are physiologically and psychologically more suited to the direct wielding of authority and dealing with harsh politics. By working within our God-given natures, society will benefit from the best that men and women have to offer.
As I have shown, the thought behind the lack of women's suffrage in Edan is not one of restriction upon, or lack of respect for women. Quite the opposite, it is the elevation of the feminine voice to one that is truly meaningful, and can contribute to all of our society, rather than be reduced to simply another button to be pushed in the voting booth.
Apr 9, 2012
Apr 7, 2012
Apr 6, 2012
Apr 1, 2012
Happy Constitution Day!
Today is Constitution Day, the celebration of the finalization of the Edanian Constitution. Since this year's Constitution Day falls on a Sunday, it is observed tomorrow, but we wish to take this time to announce our newest citizen, Peter. Welcome, Peter, to Edan.
Mar 22, 2012
Aristocracy and Society, part 2
As discussed in part I, equality of people means that all people are equal in their basic human rights; no more. In other areas people vary, often widely, in areas of physical and mental ability. This results, naturally and justly, into hierarchies among men in any group, institution or society.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.
When this tendency toward hierarchy is understood for what it is, the natural response of all people to differences in ability, it is no more or less than part of culture and society. In several cultures this has even been part of an attempt to create a meritocracy where there were incentives for certain abilities and checks on others, or on inabilities,with the goal of quantifying and controlling hierarchies in society for the greater good of all. The traditional Chinese civil service, for example, was based upon a series of formal exams so that the intelligent and well-educated would be promoted to positions of influence and even power.
Most of these attempts at a meritocracy fail over time, however, or reveal some very interesting facts about human nature. For example, the Chinese civil service became a bed of corruption were posts were bought and sold. The armies of Napoleon were based upon meritocracy – promotion and leadership were based upon proven ability to fight, to lead and a demonstrated grasp of tactics and strategy. Napoleon's goal was to have leaders selected based upon merit and proven success. In the end, however, all of his meritocratically-chosen marshals were defeated by the Duke of Wellington, a man who had literally purchased most of his promotions.
As much as Western democracies may speak of all people being equal they are, in the end, all attempts at meritocracies. What are political campaigns but attempts to demonstrate that a particular candidate is better-suited to lead than all others? Many democracies have accepted, if unwritten, 'minimum standards' for political leaders as far as where they were educated, careers before entering politics, hobbies, etc. This forms an unacknowledged aristocracy within democracies, an aristocracy of education and background, of outlook and hobbies.
While the level of ability between a formal and informal aristocracy may be similar, these unacknowledged aristocracies are inferior to recognized aristocracies for three reasons; training, accountability, and responsibility. In a formal aristocratic class, members are aware from a very early age that they are expected to be not just privileged but also responsible, responsible to society as a whole to lead politically, socially and morally. This responsibility is accompanied by accountability; all levels of society know what is expected of the aristocracy, so failure to live up to cultural expectations strikes directly at the very elite status of the aristocrat. Indeed, it can be argued that the decline of aristocratic elites in Europe was tied to a chronic failure to be moral and ethical exemplars as well as a failure to lead politically. Naturally, the combination of responsibility and accountability leads to a lifetime of training for the role of being a leader and an example.
In contrast, the informal aristocracies of the modern democracies haven't these same expectations and there for lack the lifetime of preparation for leadership.
As mentioned before, no system is perfect, and aristocracies are prone to decline and corruption in the absence of a strong moral code. Of course, we have seen that democracies are more prone to this same decline and seem to have a tendency to reject the sorts of moral codes that would prevent this decline and/or lead to periodic renewal of aristocratic virtues.
But this is, we believe, why micronations tend to adopt aristocracies; an acknowledgement of not just Man's need for hierarchy, but an understanding that a formal leadership class is more likely to provide and maintain a strong ethical structure for society as a whole as well as give more stable long-term leadership than other systems. But such groups must be aware that the inescapable consequences of being an aristocrat are increased responsibilities and accountability.
Jan 23, 2012
Aristocracy and Society, part 1
[from HRH Jonathan]
The Modern Western World demands a form of total equality of everyone exposed to it's touch, an idea that has become ubiquitous. Popular entertainment, education, and such all decry sexism and racism as evil while otherwise denying the possibility of objective morality. Discrimination is painted as one of the greatest of crimes.
However, there are problems with this attitude on the subject. Some forms of discrimination, such as attacks on certain religions or regions, are ignored or even celebrated (can you imagine the stereotypes of American Southerners being as broadly condemned as stereotypes or, say, American Blacks?). Another problem is far more insidious; the belief that any form of stratified social structure or other limitations based on personal status are discrimination.
This is an argument against aristocracies about as old as the French Revolution. There is a pervading vision of the Middle Ages as a time of oppression, with very wealthy and very haughty nobles lording their status over the poor serfs, women being held as completely useless for everything except childbirth, and paranoid kings declaring war on anyone who doesn't share their exact beliefs, a "Dark Age'. Continuing this popular myth, it is also thought that the revolution of democracy reversed this cruel situation of tyranny. All men were finally treated justly, women were finally not just property, governments became inherently enlightened. Of course, this popular myth is just that - myth. Historians don't use the term 'Dark Ages', bad kings were the exception, some of the richest and most powerful people of the Middle Ages were women, etc. But the myth lives on, stronger than reality in the common wisdom.
There are 2 very similar myths commonly held that are perpetuated by, and in turn empower, the concept of feminism. First is the idea that somehow before about 1965 or so women were not allowed to get an education or work outside the home but were kept in a type of slavery in the kitchen. The other is that that any differences between the sexes other than those necessary to reproduction are strictly non-physical social constructs.
Actually, women were receiving excellent educations at college for centuries before the coining of the term 'feminist'; from the Seven Sisters in America to the various women's colleges in Europe women did, yes, have opportunities for advancement in academia and the professional world. As far as work outside the home, women have always done so - throughout urban life the goal of women was being lucky and successful enough to only work in the home. To illustrate this point, the only woman to win the American Medal of Honor was an Army Doctor - in the American Civil War.
There are, or course, irrefutably obvious differences between the sexes beyond the obvious. Differences in musculature, vision, digestion, even neurochemistry. To admit than men are naturally stronger than women no more makes one superior to the other than does the admission that women have better balance than men. But to deny these realities makes it much easier to deny other things, such as the fact that boys and girls are ready to learn certain topics at different ages so holding both to the same academic standards at young ages is an error. With the dozens of differences in physical and mental form and ability, is it truly oppressive and wrong that there are social and political differences?
The claim is that men have discriminated against women throughout history, because in traditional societies men occupy higher positions in the business, politics, warfare, and religion, while women were focused into caring for families misses the point. The division of labor that makes the family the core of society and civilization leads naturally to such divisions at the larger level, as well. While men may dominate politics, women dominate societal norms, an area that arguably has much more actual influence on say-to-day life.
And we must at all times remember the great rule: There are exceptions to every rule when it comes to people. St. Claire, Elizabeth II, and Boudicca all show that in staunchly patriarchal societies women, too, have political and military leadership roles to fill. Thus it is a gender role, not a gender rule. And this gender dynamic has always been in place for a very good reason: There are exceptions to every rule, but in terms of a majority it is still a rule. Though people such as Saint Joan of Arc or Fa Mulan exist, and are perhaps more common then some think, they are still a rarity, and it is the same on the other side of the equation.
But the disruption of traditional structures was not limited to gender norms, there was also a breakdown of class distinctions. The aristocracies were annihilated, and royal houses were deposed, all in the name of progress. But the idea that history is indomitable march towards the future is yet another myth, and the destruction of the hated class system in the name of 'progress' was a dire mistake by the revolutionaries who, in the end, were merely murderers.
Class distinctions have always existed in nearly every Culture above the hunter-gatherer stage. Certainly those which were morally and politically stable had them, and often we find that the sharpness of the distinction is proportional to the stability imparted. Compare Athens to Imperial China for instance, or the Zulu tribes to pre-revolutionary England. Now it is true that stability is not a substitute for morality, but with stability any morality that is in place is unlikely to go away. The codes of Chivalry and Bushido only grew during the rule of aristocratic monarchy in their respective lands, and then vanished with said systems taking with them the codes that channeled the power and strength of the ruling classes toward weal rather than egoism.
The modern thought on traditional class distinctions is a rather universal; "They're evil!". I still do not truly know why. The Enlightenment was a rebellion of the middle and upper-middle classes and it spread a great deal of propoganda, perhaps this is the reason. In any case it is doubtless that the democratic revolutions around the late 1700s and early 1800s considered the nobility and any real political class distinction to be their enemies even as they placed land-owning, gender, and race-based limitations on voting. This caused a great deal of the prejudice we see today. But it is important to remember that it is impossible to break human nature, if there is not a stratified society by design, there will eventually be a stratified society by opportunity. If by Culture and Government there is an existing aristocratic class with distinct duties, goals, and privileges, and limitations then those with the ambition to rise, whether it be good or bad, will have a channel for this ambition. Whereas if there is no existing position to aspire to, then those who would rise high must make their positions, and this is usually very bad. And in the absence of a societal framework many of the duties and limitations will be weak or non-existant, leaving only the power. Giving someone who would become a noble or a general freedom to tailor a position to their own ends is a ticket to disaster, for if this ambition is born of a hunger for power then the ambitious will be free to indulge. Even those with good intentions are likely to stumble when given absolute freedom in this regard, who could resist righting one more wrong?
While there were certainly tyrants in the 'old days' were robber barons any different, other than there being fewer societal checks on their abuses? Today there are corrupt politicians and corporate plutocrats in startling numbers, all able to avoid the ostracism of their peers for we have done away with the Peerage. Mean-spirited nobles have been replaced with graft-ridden senators (no change except that a Senator has no concerns for the lands his heirs will inherit), dark hearted merchant lords have been replaced by all-controlling CEOs (no change at all). And at the same time great nobles have been replaced by voters, and charitable guildsmen have been replaced by unions constantly falling prey to corruption. As much as free-markets and democracies have done to increase profits, they have done more to decrease duty and honor by seeing them as valueless in 'the market'.
All these things are together in my arguments because they are all a different extension of the same principal, segregation. No, not the legal segregation of an oppressed group from its overlords, but the natural separation of the elements of society, even if only leaders from others. While a harsh segregation with no room to change or be an exception is flawed and doomed to failure, I have no doubt that a flexible one is an important part of any stable society. It may seem stifling and wrong when read and spoken of here, but segregation has existed throughout history, and whenever it is taken away darkness follows. There are too many dangers in blurring the lines, and not enough rewards. True equality can only be found in Anarchy, and Anarchy is only destructive, never constructive.
Many problems exploding in this era we are in can be attributed to a breakdown of barriers in society: homosexuality seen as 'no different than' normal behavior; near-plutocracy, rabid entitlement, and other such issues. And so I conclude that civilization needs and aristocracy, and soon.
The Modern Western World demands a form of total equality of everyone exposed to it's touch, an idea that has become ubiquitous. Popular entertainment, education, and such all decry sexism and racism as evil while otherwise denying the possibility of objective morality. Discrimination is painted as one of the greatest of crimes.
However, there are problems with this attitude on the subject. Some forms of discrimination, such as attacks on certain religions or regions, are ignored or even celebrated (can you imagine the stereotypes of American Southerners being as broadly condemned as stereotypes or, say, American Blacks?). Another problem is far more insidious; the belief that any form of stratified social structure or other limitations based on personal status are discrimination.
This is an argument against aristocracies about as old as the French Revolution. There is a pervading vision of the Middle Ages as a time of oppression, with very wealthy and very haughty nobles lording their status over the poor serfs, women being held as completely useless for everything except childbirth, and paranoid kings declaring war on anyone who doesn't share their exact beliefs, a "Dark Age'. Continuing this popular myth, it is also thought that the revolution of democracy reversed this cruel situation of tyranny. All men were finally treated justly, women were finally not just property, governments became inherently enlightened. Of course, this popular myth is just that - myth. Historians don't use the term 'Dark Ages', bad kings were the exception, some of the richest and most powerful people of the Middle Ages were women, etc. But the myth lives on, stronger than reality in the common wisdom.
There are 2 very similar myths commonly held that are perpetuated by, and in turn empower, the concept of feminism. First is the idea that somehow before about 1965 or so women were not allowed to get an education or work outside the home but were kept in a type of slavery in the kitchen. The other is that that any differences between the sexes other than those necessary to reproduction are strictly non-physical social constructs.
Actually, women were receiving excellent educations at college for centuries before the coining of the term 'feminist'; from the Seven Sisters in America to the various women's colleges in Europe women did, yes, have opportunities for advancement in academia and the professional world. As far as work outside the home, women have always done so - throughout urban life the goal of women was being lucky and successful enough to only work in the home. To illustrate this point, the only woman to win the American Medal of Honor was an Army Doctor - in the American Civil War.
There are, or course, irrefutably obvious differences between the sexes beyond the obvious. Differences in musculature, vision, digestion, even neurochemistry. To admit than men are naturally stronger than women no more makes one superior to the other than does the admission that women have better balance than men. But to deny these realities makes it much easier to deny other things, such as the fact that boys and girls are ready to learn certain topics at different ages so holding both to the same academic standards at young ages is an error. With the dozens of differences in physical and mental form and ability, is it truly oppressive and wrong that there are social and political differences?
The claim is that men have discriminated against women throughout history, because in traditional societies men occupy higher positions in the business, politics, warfare, and religion, while women were focused into caring for families misses the point. The division of labor that makes the family the core of society and civilization leads naturally to such divisions at the larger level, as well. While men may dominate politics, women dominate societal norms, an area that arguably has much more actual influence on say-to-day life.
And we must at all times remember the great rule: There are exceptions to every rule when it comes to people. St. Claire, Elizabeth II, and Boudicca all show that in staunchly patriarchal societies women, too, have political and military leadership roles to fill. Thus it is a gender role, not a gender rule. And this gender dynamic has always been in place for a very good reason: There are exceptions to every rule, but in terms of a majority it is still a rule. Though people such as Saint Joan of Arc or Fa Mulan exist, and are perhaps more common then some think, they are still a rarity, and it is the same on the other side of the equation.
But the disruption of traditional structures was not limited to gender norms, there was also a breakdown of class distinctions. The aristocracies were annihilated, and royal houses were deposed, all in the name of progress. But the idea that history is indomitable march towards the future is yet another myth, and the destruction of the hated class system in the name of 'progress' was a dire mistake by the revolutionaries who, in the end, were merely murderers.
Class distinctions have always existed in nearly every Culture above the hunter-gatherer stage. Certainly those which were morally and politically stable had them, and often we find that the sharpness of the distinction is proportional to the stability imparted. Compare Athens to Imperial China for instance, or the Zulu tribes to pre-revolutionary England. Now it is true that stability is not a substitute for morality, but with stability any morality that is in place is unlikely to go away. The codes of Chivalry and Bushido only grew during the rule of aristocratic monarchy in their respective lands, and then vanished with said systems taking with them the codes that channeled the power and strength of the ruling classes toward weal rather than egoism.
The modern thought on traditional class distinctions is a rather universal; "They're evil!". I still do not truly know why. The Enlightenment was a rebellion of the middle and upper-middle classes and it spread a great deal of propoganda, perhaps this is the reason. In any case it is doubtless that the democratic revolutions around the late 1700s and early 1800s considered the nobility and any real political class distinction to be their enemies even as they placed land-owning, gender, and race-based limitations on voting. This caused a great deal of the prejudice we see today. But it is important to remember that it is impossible to break human nature, if there is not a stratified society by design, there will eventually be a stratified society by opportunity. If by Culture and Government there is an existing aristocratic class with distinct duties, goals, and privileges, and limitations then those with the ambition to rise, whether it be good or bad, will have a channel for this ambition. Whereas if there is no existing position to aspire to, then those who would rise high must make their positions, and this is usually very bad. And in the absence of a societal framework many of the duties and limitations will be weak or non-existant, leaving only the power. Giving someone who would become a noble or a general freedom to tailor a position to their own ends is a ticket to disaster, for if this ambition is born of a hunger for power then the ambitious will be free to indulge. Even those with good intentions are likely to stumble when given absolute freedom in this regard, who could resist righting one more wrong?
While there were certainly tyrants in the 'old days' were robber barons any different, other than there being fewer societal checks on their abuses? Today there are corrupt politicians and corporate plutocrats in startling numbers, all able to avoid the ostracism of their peers for we have done away with the Peerage. Mean-spirited nobles have been replaced with graft-ridden senators (no change except that a Senator has no concerns for the lands his heirs will inherit), dark hearted merchant lords have been replaced by all-controlling CEOs (no change at all). And at the same time great nobles have been replaced by voters, and charitable guildsmen have been replaced by unions constantly falling prey to corruption. As much as free-markets and democracies have done to increase profits, they have done more to decrease duty and honor by seeing them as valueless in 'the market'.
All these things are together in my arguments because they are all a different extension of the same principal, segregation. No, not the legal segregation of an oppressed group from its overlords, but the natural separation of the elements of society, even if only leaders from others. While a harsh segregation with no room to change or be an exception is flawed and doomed to failure, I have no doubt that a flexible one is an important part of any stable society. It may seem stifling and wrong when read and spoken of here, but segregation has existed throughout history, and whenever it is taken away darkness follows. There are too many dangers in blurring the lines, and not enough rewards. True equality can only be found in Anarchy, and Anarchy is only destructive, never constructive.
Many problems exploding in this era we are in can be attributed to a breakdown of barriers in society: homosexuality seen as 'no different than' normal behavior; near-plutocracy, rabid entitlement, and other such issues. And so I conclude that civilization needs and aristocracy, and soon.
Dec 30, 2011
The Difference Between culture and a Culture, and Why the Latter is Necessary.
[From HRM Richard and HRH Jonathan]
How do countries form, and more importantly, how do they last? What is it that separated the early Romans who conquered the known world from the late Romans who collapsed into decadence? What separates the nations in America and Europe, who once had the drive to forge empires in less than a century, from their current forms which are spiraling into self destruction through demographic collapse? We are certainly not the only ones asking these questions, they are being asked by people the world over, most desperately seeking to repair their countries.
We know the answer. The answer is the reason that the constitution of Edan is secondary to its creation and existence, the answer is the reason that America was once so strong despite its constitution, the answer is the reason Europe is dying. The answer?
Culture, with a capital.
By 'Culture' we mean the shared attitudes, goals, practices, and values that characterize and define a group.
Culture is the shared experience, outlook, and traditions that grows into civilization. That implacable force that creates patriots and heroes. The USA would not be more than a Balkanized backwater if it wasn't for the paradoxical mix of arrogant destiny and humble hope her people shared in the past. The other Western nations likewise had a complex self-image that defined them as a people and helped them, caused them to survive great trials.
So, where did this Culture go, to be replaced with countless lesser ideas, all of which discount what had made various Peoples great? Culture has degraded to relativism and egoism; the rejection of standards and the embrace of the self over the group. Devotion to something higher than oneself is seen as improper, impossible, and even evil, while the elevation of personal desire over the good of the whole is seen as proper and good. Those who espouse these ideas have told us for generations that relativism and egoism will lead to a better world with happier people. Instead we have a violent, factional world full of people so without hope they do not have enough children to replace themselves.
Culture is what truly defines a People, what truly drives them; Civilization is nothing more than Cultures 'grown up'. And these various Civilizations/Cultures each have an identity founded upon language, tradition, attitude, and religion that separates Peoples and countries from each other. Other than matters of ethnicity, what is it that really separates Japan from China? England from France? Russia from Poland? Their difference of Culture, that is the true difference, and without it there would be a sort of numbing sameness of egoistic relativism, a loss of uniqueness that would make us all a bit poorer.
In the modern world we have are facing a horrible loss of Cultures, and at an unimaginable scale. There is nothing to take pride in other than oneself. In the realm of egoistic relativism no history, no shared experience, no tradition can justify patriotism, or pride, or even true hope. In the eyes of the wider world this devotion to greater things is evil and 'progress' is defined as stripping away more and more of the true Culture that make civilization possible. Communism and Socialism view Culture as an enemy that prevents 'progress'; Libertarianism and Feminism with their extreme focus on egoism view Culture as unjust control. Modern Democracies, so very new, reject much of the Cultures that came before because they see them (correctly) as being irrevocably part and parcel with religion and royalty. This rejection of the Cultures that built civilization has been happening in the West for almost 300 years and worldwide for almost 100.
We are finally starting to see the dark toll this is taking on civilization.
Without these binding forces of Culture to bring people together and drive them forward, what is there in life? Why is there any reason to care about a future that you and your (egoistic, relativistic) beliefs will have no part of? Religion? Religion is a part of a Culture that has been attacked with particular brutality. Family? What is your family without Cultural definitions? Indeed, why have a family when you expect them to share none of your values other than relativism and egoism? Your country? What is the point of governments and nations without a Culture for them to base themselves on, other than control?
Duty, Honor, Justice, Charity; these are the first casualties of relativism and egoism because without these things Cultures fail and are forgotten. Whether destroying these virtues was the goal or merely a side effect of misguided attempts to forge a Utopia we may never know. What we do know is that in the name of equality justice has been destroyed;in the name of individualism duty, honor and charity are rejected; in the name of reason truth has been abandoned; in the name of liberty freedom has been rendered useless.
We of Edan embrace these virtues as the means to embrace civilization and reject barbarism, as the true method, the only proven way, to make the world a better place.
How do countries form, and more importantly, how do they last? What is it that separated the early Romans who conquered the known world from the late Romans who collapsed into decadence? What separates the nations in America and Europe, who once had the drive to forge empires in less than a century, from their current forms which are spiraling into self destruction through demographic collapse? We are certainly not the only ones asking these questions, they are being asked by people the world over, most desperately seeking to repair their countries.
We know the answer. The answer is the reason that the constitution of Edan is secondary to its creation and existence, the answer is the reason that America was once so strong despite its constitution, the answer is the reason Europe is dying. The answer?
Culture, with a capital.
By 'Culture' we mean the shared attitudes, goals, practices, and values that characterize and define a group.
Culture is the shared experience, outlook, and traditions that grows into civilization. That implacable force that creates patriots and heroes. The USA would not be more than a Balkanized backwater if it wasn't for the paradoxical mix of arrogant destiny and humble hope her people shared in the past. The other Western nations likewise had a complex self-image that defined them as a people and helped them, caused them to survive great trials.
So, where did this Culture go, to be replaced with countless lesser ideas, all of which discount what had made various Peoples great? Culture has degraded to relativism and egoism; the rejection of standards and the embrace of the self over the group. Devotion to something higher than oneself is seen as improper, impossible, and even evil, while the elevation of personal desire over the good of the whole is seen as proper and good. Those who espouse these ideas have told us for generations that relativism and egoism will lead to a better world with happier people. Instead we have a violent, factional world full of people so without hope they do not have enough children to replace themselves.
Culture is what truly defines a People, what truly drives them; Civilization is nothing more than Cultures 'grown up'. And these various Civilizations/Cultures each have an identity founded upon language, tradition, attitude, and religion that separates Peoples and countries from each other. Other than matters of ethnicity, what is it that really separates Japan from China? England from France? Russia from Poland? Their difference of Culture, that is the true difference, and without it there would be a sort of numbing sameness of egoistic relativism, a loss of uniqueness that would make us all a bit poorer.
In the modern world we have are facing a horrible loss of Cultures, and at an unimaginable scale. There is nothing to take pride in other than oneself. In the realm of egoistic relativism no history, no shared experience, no tradition can justify patriotism, or pride, or even true hope. In the eyes of the wider world this devotion to greater things is evil and 'progress' is defined as stripping away more and more of the true Culture that make civilization possible. Communism and Socialism view Culture as an enemy that prevents 'progress'; Libertarianism and Feminism with their extreme focus on egoism view Culture as unjust control. Modern Democracies, so very new, reject much of the Cultures that came before because they see them (correctly) as being irrevocably part and parcel with religion and royalty. This rejection of the Cultures that built civilization has been happening in the West for almost 300 years and worldwide for almost 100.
We are finally starting to see the dark toll this is taking on civilization.
Without these binding forces of Culture to bring people together and drive them forward, what is there in life? Why is there any reason to care about a future that you and your (egoistic, relativistic) beliefs will have no part of? Religion? Religion is a part of a Culture that has been attacked with particular brutality. Family? What is your family without Cultural definitions? Indeed, why have a family when you expect them to share none of your values other than relativism and egoism? Your country? What is the point of governments and nations without a Culture for them to base themselves on, other than control?
Duty, Honor, Justice, Charity; these are the first casualties of relativism and egoism because without these things Cultures fail and are forgotten. Whether destroying these virtues was the goal or merely a side effect of misguided attempts to forge a Utopia we may never know. What we do know is that in the name of equality justice has been destroyed;in the name of individualism duty, honor and charity are rejected; in the name of reason truth has been abandoned; in the name of liberty freedom has been rendered useless.
We of Edan embrace these virtues as the means to embrace civilization and reject barbarism, as the true method, the only proven way, to make the world a better place.
Territorial Claims
Greetings;
Affirming that we are part and party to no treaty or agreement that limits our ability to make all such claims, we do claim that the sovereign territory of Edan includes, but is not limited to, the following:
All current and future Terra Nullius;
All land held by the Royal Family, noble families, and citizens in allodial, fee simple, fee tail, or concurrent estate title now or in the future.
These claims to not prevent, limit, or hinder the statement of future claims.
Issued on the Solemnity of the Holy Family, 2011 A.D.
Ricardus Rex Edani
Affirming that we are part and party to no treaty or agreement that limits our ability to make all such claims, we do claim that the sovereign territory of Edan includes, but is not limited to, the following:
All current and future Terra Nullius;
All land held by the Royal Family, noble families, and citizens in allodial, fee simple, fee tail, or concurrent estate title now or in the future.
These claims to not prevent, limit, or hinder the statement of future claims.
Issued on the Solemnity of the Holy Family, 2011 A.D.
Ricardus Rex Edani
Nov 15, 2011
The Enemy of my Enemy is Just a Stranger
Edan is dedicated to certain principles and opposed to certain concepts and activities, like any nation or movement. We stand for legitimate justice, responsible freedom, family, faith, and the tenets of Catholic Social Justice as described by the Church itself. We oppose moral relativity, secularism, the disruption of the family, corporatism, Socialism, Libertarianism, usury, and Anarchy. We are dedicated to using faith, reason and example to demonstrate to the world that Distributist practices lead to a more stable, more just, more sustainable society.
It is for these reasons that the King of Edan opposes the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Yes, there are superficial points of agreement between Distributism and the Occupy Wall Street protesters' complaints and goals (when they have made them); OWS appears to oppose usury and does oppose the debt-based system currently used in modern financial markets; OWS members complain about consumerism and the commoditization of certain elements of life; OWS wants to end the level of influence wealth can achieve in the political process; OWS wants to transform the current laissez-faire/Corporate/Crony Capitalism into something more just. On these and some other points OWS seems to agree with Edanian concepts and policy.
But these are only in the realm of complaints. The OWS movement seems to motivated by Socialist and Anarchist goals; Kalle Lasn of Adbusters, the motive force that began OWS, admitted that the reason that the OWS is happening now is that President Obama has not been Socialist enough to satisfy the young voters that won him the election. Many of the local protests, particularly in Los Angeles and Portland are openly controlled by Communist organizations who use pressure tactics and outright violence to control the camps and dialogue. Other camps are controlled by Anarchists and/or well-armed 'security forces' that, again, use fear and violence to control the protests and the speakers.
The '99% Declaration' document does hold many things that are obviously meritorious; the end of cash lobbying, elimination of the concept of corporations as people, etc. But it also demands such things are increased federal involvement in jobs and business (replacing corporations with bureaucracies), the rather utopian desire to end all wars, and (inexplicably for a document that is supposed to be about economics) a demand that gay “marriage” be made available.
Behind the scenes the OWS movement is having many internal problems that the King finds problematic; violence and sexual assault are common and the assaulted are pressured to remain silent; millions of dollars have been donated frequently from groups that are contrary to Catholic, Distributist, and Edanian ethics, and that money has been placed into the very banks they are protesting and are controlled by a small group of protesters. Violence and threats against outsiders is commonplace, as is vandalism and general lawlessness.
Some within the Distributists groups have embraced the OWS protests as an inherently good thing, seemingly under the concept of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'. In reality, though, the enemy of my enemy is just a stranger. The Socialist/Anarchist/Direct Democracy members of OWS that clamor for more government involvement in wages, employment, immigration, medicine, and family law are not allies to Distributism nor are they friendly to the morals and ethics that undergird Distributism.
It is for these reasons that the King of Edan opposes the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Yes, there are superficial points of agreement between Distributism and the Occupy Wall Street protesters' complaints and goals (when they have made them); OWS appears to oppose usury and does oppose the debt-based system currently used in modern financial markets; OWS members complain about consumerism and the commoditization of certain elements of life; OWS wants to end the level of influence wealth can achieve in the political process; OWS wants to transform the current laissez-faire/Corporate/Crony Capitalism into something more just. On these and some other points OWS seems to agree with Edanian concepts and policy.
But these are only in the realm of complaints. The OWS movement seems to motivated by Socialist and Anarchist goals; Kalle Lasn of Adbusters, the motive force that began OWS, admitted that the reason that the OWS is happening now is that President Obama has not been Socialist enough to satisfy the young voters that won him the election. Many of the local protests, particularly in Los Angeles and Portland are openly controlled by Communist organizations who use pressure tactics and outright violence to control the camps and dialogue. Other camps are controlled by Anarchists and/or well-armed 'security forces' that, again, use fear and violence to control the protests and the speakers.
The '99% Declaration' document does hold many things that are obviously meritorious; the end of cash lobbying, elimination of the concept of corporations as people, etc. But it also demands such things are increased federal involvement in jobs and business (replacing corporations with bureaucracies), the rather utopian desire to end all wars, and (inexplicably for a document that is supposed to be about economics) a demand that gay “marriage” be made available.
Behind the scenes the OWS movement is having many internal problems that the King finds problematic; violence and sexual assault are common and the assaulted are pressured to remain silent; millions of dollars have been donated frequently from groups that are contrary to Catholic, Distributist, and Edanian ethics, and that money has been placed into the very banks they are protesting and are controlled by a small group of protesters. Violence and threats against outsiders is commonplace, as is vandalism and general lawlessness.
Some within the Distributists groups have embraced the OWS protests as an inherently good thing, seemingly under the concept of 'the enemy of our enemy is our friend'. In reality, though, the enemy of my enemy is just a stranger. The Socialist/Anarchist/Direct Democracy members of OWS that clamor for more government involvement in wages, employment, immigration, medicine, and family law are not allies to Distributism nor are they friendly to the morals and ethics that undergird Distributism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)