The Goals of Edan: Fighting for Ideas

[by Prince Jonathan]

  In continuing the article series on the goals of Edan, it must be noted that one of the ways in which Edan differs most strongly from the more established nations of our day is that it as an idea, not an institution. The actual government and apparatus of the kingdom are secondary features of the greater concept and ideals of the kingdom, unlike, for example, the United States, whose ideals of being the Land of the Free and of Opportunity are auxiliary to the rule of its government. The effects of this divide in nature are subtle and far-reaching, and are seen most clearly in an analysis of national goals. Indeed, most of the things in the Edanian agenda that seem most irrational and naïve fall neatly into place when this difference is considered. After all, if Edan was an institution first, we would indeed be acting irrationally and naïvely by following our current strategy. Our first priority would have to be the acquisition of territory under our direct control, along with wealth, influence, military power, and the loyal population required to sustain such things; and then we would have to use this power base to work for the growth and prestige of our institution in competition against the various other national institutions of the world. But, fortunately, these goals are not the goals of Edan, because they do not suit Edan. As was previously stated, Edan is an idea, so to promote its expansion and well-being, our priority and goal must be to convince more people that our ideas are true and good, thus causing them to live according to these ideas. The power and size of the kingdom is not measured in square miles, nor in gold reserves, nor in military budget, but in the number of people who live the Edanian way of life, even if they are not actually sworn as citizens. Understanding this truth is absolutely critical to understanding Edan itself.

     For example, this makes Edan's plans for future expansion radically different from what the dominant contemporary paradigm would lead one to expect. Our single, solitary long-term goal related to increasing our own power base is to proselytize for the Edanian ideals of subsidiarity, solidarity, Traditional values, family living, and an integrated life. This is all we need, and, in fact, all we can need, to grow. Territory, money, international diplomacy, and all the other tools of the modern nation-state are useful to us only as means to this end, and the ends of our other major goals. They are not the prize, but rather, tools to gain the prize, which is an organic and voluntary re-ordering of society along Traditionalist lines.

     Our short and mid-term goals in service of this end, therefore, must necessarily be just as incongruous and strange to the modern eye. They must, in just the same way as the ultimate goal they advance, be ordered not to acquiring temporal power for our government, but to making people desire to be Edanians. They must, in short, uphold our ideas, while pushing back the rule of rival ideas. 

     While this may seem to be a difficult purpose to serve, it is actually one of the easiest, and one of the ones that we will get to soonest. A very important short-term goal that the kingdom is soon to complete is the foundation of a group called the Knights of St. Maurice. This will be an organization, similar in a few superficial respects to the American Boy Scouts, that will take in boys as young as 12 as members, and train them in the practice and theory of Traditional Catholic Masculinity. It will teach them physical and mental discipline, both the theory and the practice of authentic courtesy, the basics of how to grow in the Spiritual Life through sacrifice and work, leadership, and every other masculine skill denied to them by modernity; all while fortifying them with a sturdy foundation of apologetics in defence of both the One True Church and the Western Civilization built upon it. The end result of this will be, if all goes well, that the boys who enter the organization as unprepared youths will leave it with all the tools they need to live as men and fight in defence of the Edanian Way. In other words, it will expand the influence and power of Tradition in the world, thereby expanding the Kingdom of Edan, even in the unlikely event that none of the newly-trained knights become citizens. And, while it may seem that this organization will be hard to create and support, it will actually require very little real work, if its members are willing.

     This order will also serve as a mould and model for future organizations of similar nature and the same purpose. Some of these groups will be discussed in greater detail in future articles, and we will doubtlessly come up with more ideas and inspirations for them as the kingdom grows, but a good example to bring up now in synergy with the Order of Saint Maurice is the concept, long deliberated upon by the Royal Family, of an Order of Motherhood. The exact details of this organization have yet to be codified, as its creation is a mid-term goal not likely to be completed soon, but its basic nature is simple. It will reward and honour those mothers throughout the citizenry, and, in exceptional cases, throughout the world, who go above and beyond the call of duty within their maternal vocation. Based upon how many children they have and what notable things those children go on to do, such as joining the Edanian military, the mothers thus honoured would receive a variety of minor medals, ribbons, titles, and privileges, as well as, once the kingdom's infrastructure is advanced enough, monetary awards. This practice would have many benefits to the kingdom: it would reinforce within Edanian culture the Traditional truth that motherhood deserves to be honoured and defended; it would clearly illustrate to the post-Enlightenment world that, far from oppressing them, the Edanian way of life aids and rewards women; it would encourage young women amongst the citizens to take up the maternal vocation themselves; and it would give patriotic citizens a way of clearly showing their Traditionalist identity to the world. Thus, by merely bearing witness to our internal ideology with external signs, we could quicken the pace of the kingdom's growth ever further, and do a tremendous amount of good in the world besides, as is right and just.

     And these orders, these simple defences of masculinity and femininity, are only the beginning. With these organizations and the others that we will doubtlessly create over time, we will build up a foundation that will eventually flower into our true goal in the pursuit of growth: the emergence of a distinct Edanian culture. As our way of life is taught to and internalized by more and more people through the actions of these teaching organizations, and as the visibility of the kingdom increases through cosmetic additions like distinctive modes of dress or specifically Edanian holidays, and as the political influence of the kingdom grows through the increase of the citizenry, it is inevitable that the concept and ideal of Edan will gradually crystallize into a truly distinct society, a community of people living the Edanian life. If we can succeed in doing this, if we actually create a distinct contingent of the population that has rejected the flawed paradigm of the modern world in favour of Tradition, Distributism, Catholicity, and Justice, the Kingdom of Edan will have definitively and irrevocably succeeded. Even if our government should be overthrown and our Royal Family wiped out and our oaths forgotten, if our ideals live on in the world, Edan will survive and, I can confidently say, thrive.

     So, to summarize, the only way to understand the kingdom's methods of and goals for expansion and growth is to understand that we are playing a very, very different game from that of any other country that currently exists. We win not through the acquisition of land, power, and prestige, but through bearing witness to the goodness and strength of our ideology. Our dream is not a thriving economy, a powerful military, diplomatic hegemony, and ever-spreading borders, but a distinct culture, a place in the mainstream political debate, people who leave liberalism for Tradition, and communities being founded according to the rule we embrace. We work not for the exaltation of Edan, but for the exaltation of the Edanian life. We are an idea, not an institution.

Authentic Social Justice: the Core of Edan

  ">Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority"

Thus begins the catechism's section on Social Justice. What does it really mean? Well, when society allows justice to be done, you have social Justice - obviously. Social justice is part and parcel of both the common man and of leaders.
  Notice what it does not  say, however - it does not say that leaders or the common man must give justice to people or groups. It says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due. 
  In other words Social Justice is not the giving of things to people by government, it is the conditions of society that allow justice to be gained.

  The Catechism goes on to say,

"Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. "

  More briefly 'human rights are granted by God, not society, and the moral legitimacy of any worldly authority or society is based upon recognizing and supporting these rights'.  Or, 'any society or authority that denies the inherent, God-given rights of Man is not legitimate'.
  So governments, whatever their nature, must support the inherent rights of its people or it will have no legitimacy and and society that flaunts these rights is also illegitimate. This is key because it means that a core contention of Democracy, that legitimacy of society and authority is derived from the will of the people, i.e., the opinions of a majority of voters, is false. If 50.1% of voters support the murder of innocents that does not make the murder of innocents acceptable, it makes the society that supports such voters illegitimate.
  
  Later the catechism states,

"Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity."

Or 'the inherent rights of all men are the same'. The peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal; the stable boy has as much right to justice as the prince.

  It continues,

"On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The "talents" are not distributed equally...  ...These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures"

  More shortly, 'equality of inherent rights does not mean equality in all ways; people are tall and short, smart and dumb, skilled speakers and reticent, leaders and followers. These differences are part of God's plan and are good for all involved'. So while the peasant has the same chance of heaven as the cardinal, the cardinal has gifts and authority the peasant does not. Likewise, while the stable boy has the same right to justice as the prince, the prince has duties and obligations the stable boy never will. And this is not just acceptable, it is good.

  The Catechism then warns us that,

">There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women...."

  In this the Catechism is speaking of when societies and leaders have or implement systems that impose sinful inequalities upon people. It continues with,

"...Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions."

  Remember how beginning of this piece we pointed out that,

"t says that society (meaning the common men and leaders) are to allow people or groups to obtain what is their due."

  This portion tells us that when society actively prevents people or groups from obtaining what is their due it is sinful.

  The Catechism concludes its section on Social Justice with,

" Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this."

  Or, 'love of neighbor and charity among and between people is the solution to social injustice'.

  So the central ideas of Social Justice are quite clear; be just and allow others to obtain justice; love your neighbor and be charitable.

  But are their guidelines for rulers and leaders as to the nuts and bolts of implementing this?

  The Catechism focuses heavily on Solidarity. Solidarity has two meanings; the earning of a livelihood through work and the friendship and social charity between all people in a society. At its heart Solidarity is the rejection of class as a dividing force between people. The poor are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the poor. The rich are to show solidarity with everyone, not just the rich. Emploers, workers, farmers, artisans, men, women, etc. - all are part of society. By rejecting class as a dividing factor it is also inherently a rejection of individualism as a defining element of humanity. While we are all individuals and have individual needs, etc. no one is ever alone and just as society is an outgrowth of the family no one in a society is capable of being truly apart from that society just as no man can ever not have a mother.
  Solidarity is also much more spiritual and emotional rather than material. The goal of Solidarity isn't wealth, the goal is justice. Granted, justice often leads to increased wealth....
  Yet Solidarity is not collectivist! As we read above, justice is about the individual person; individuals have God-given natural rights, not societies or governments. In the end Solidarity is an explicit rejection of such Liberal concepts such as Communism and Libertarianism - both collectivism and material individualism are rejected as false and, thus, unjust.

  Another key element of a just society is Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the principle that,

""a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

  Or as the OED states,

"The principle that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate, local level."

   More simply, 'as local and personal as possible'. There are many reasons for thus ranging from simple efficiency (how can a distant administrator have a clearer idea?) and moral (rights are individual, not collective, so avoid the collective). Again, this is a direct rejection of collectivism and individualism; the collective is to be avoided as much as possible, but there are times when the collective is the only answer.

  The next core element is Private Property. The Catechism tells us that,

"In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men."

  Or, 'men have a right to private property'. Indeed, private property is an element of dignity and freedom and part of Solidarity. But the Catechism also warns us,

"The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. the universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
  In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor. "

  Another reminder that we are part of a family and that we owe all good to God and, thus, we owe solidarity to our neighbors. Note as well that yet again there is an explicit rejection of collectivism ('the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise') and individualism (' legitimate goods he... ... owns not... exclusive to himself but common to others...'). Indeed, we are morally obligated to make our property fruitful because fruitfulness helps others. If we are 'middlemen' then we must be as efficient as possible so that we do not waste what could be used charitably. The Catechism later states,

"Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good"

Tied with the obligation to respect the right to private property this means that governments have the right to regulate, say, workplace safety, waste disposal and pollution, etc. to ensure the common good. So while private property is a right, it is not an absolute right. Indeed,

"Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.
The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

  Note how this states that waste, excessive expense, and willfully damaging your own property is immoral.  Also, the inescapable conclusion is that to be moral we must reject not just collectivism and individualism but also Communism/Socialism and laissez-faire Capitalism. Communism rejects the idea of private property, denying people freedom, security, and the option for their own justice. Socialism rejects subsidiarity and demands central planning, dehumanizing the person. Laissez-faire Capitalism rejects Solidarity and focuses on profits instead of people. The inherent collectivism of Communism and Socialism (which rejects individual rights and justice) is matched by the inherent individualism of Capitalism (which rejects legitimate authority and the common good. Thus, Edan embraces Distributism, which is no more than the consolidation of Catholic social justice.

  

  Here are the core ideas of Edan:

1) All citizens have a right to private property, a right to just compensation for their goods and services, and a right to enter into contracts, including employment contracts, of their own free will

2) Ownership of private property and work are both inherently good for the individual and for society. 'Work' includes physical, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual work.

3) The government has the authority to regulate private property and business for the common good.

4) Decisions should be made as far 'down' the hierarchy of authority as possible.

5) Co-operatives and guilds are preferred to unions and corporations. 

6) Government is for leadership, not charity.

Non-Territorial Nations - What is Edan Doing?!

  As explained with admirable efficiency by geographer Matt Rosenberg; 

     "While the terms country, state, and nation are often used interchangeably, there is a difference. A State (note the capital "S") is a self-governing political entity. The term State can be used interchangeably with country. A nation, however, is a tightly-knit group of people which share a common culture. A nation-state is a nation which has the same borders as a State."

  This is a bit more precise than common usage, actually. While we tend to use 'nation-state' as a shorthand this can be incorrect. Take Canada - there are at least two distinct Nations in Canada (one with a Protestant English culture and another with a Catholic French culture) so Canada is a State with multiple Nations within it. Great Britain is very similar - although Great Britain is obviously a state we all know who and what a Scotsman is, correct? Scotland, which has had no territorial control of its own for quite some time (and is thus not a State) is certainly a Nation. So obviously nations can exist without control of the territory they are in. But can a nation exist without any defined territory?

  The Romani certainly think so. They announced a claim of being a Non-Territorial nation over a decade ago, a claim not just accepted by a number of academics, diplomats, and leaders but seen as a potential solution to a range of ethnic and minority issues. It can even be argued, as Elkins, Fischer, and a number of others have, that the Westphalian conceptualization of 'legitimate' States being strictly territorial has made ethnic and minority strife worse since land is a fixed asset - if you wish any sort of autonomy within the Westphalian model you must control and defend territory; all territory is already controlled and the closest to the oppressed group is most likely controlled by that group's oppressors; therefore the pressure towards violence is greatly increased. By rejecting the demand that 'legitimate' States control territory before they can engage in political, diplomatic, etc. activity you can reduce or even eliminate these pressures.

  In his works the scholar Hassner argues that the Westphalian paradigm of the nation-state is obsolete because it cannot account for the tremendous impact of everything from transnational corporations to NGOs to Violent Non-State Actors such as Al-Qaeda. He also points to the ethnic strife of Africa as distinct Nations resort to large-scale violence to control territory rather than seeking non-territorial autonomy. 

  So Non-Territorial Nations are an existing fact, long predating modern concepts of nation-states; Non-Territorial Nations as well as Non-State Actors, NGO's, Transnational Corporations, etc. are all recognized as a major factor in world events; so Edan's status as a (so far) non-territorial sovereign nation is neither shocking nor even very remarkable. Considering that the most notable, recognizable Non-Territorial Nation is the Catholic Church (does anyone really believe Vatican City is truly in compliance with the various ideas of Westphalian territorial control?) and that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is another key example of a Non-Territorial Nation with various forms of diplomatic recognition Edan's status as a Catholic Non-Territorial Nation is likewise unremarkable. Between the Roma, the Church, the SMOM, and dozens of other groups the idea of a sovereign non-territorial Catholic group is just not that shocking - except for a few things.

  Which we will get to.

  But why start with a non-territorial monarchy? Why not start Edan as an NGO, or a lobbying firm, or a credit union, or a charity? After all, the king is very clear that Edan needs all those things. Why not pick up the 'low-hanging fruit' and start as an incorporated not-for-profit charity and work your way up from there?

  There are many very good, very worthy NGO's in the world already. There are very good Catholic credit unions, charities, and lobbying firms. But there are two things you aren't going to find that readily.

  This goes back to the goals of Edan; our goals are not to build a better bank, nor to be an efficient charity; Edan was not founded to lobby the US for more aid to Mali nor to provide emergency relief after earthquakes. While all of those activities are a legitimate and even noble way to spend your energy, they are not what Edan is for.

  Edan exists to be truly just for both its own citizens and as an example to others of what a just nation is.

  One of the things that does distinguish Edan from the Church and from the SMOM is that it is new. Edan is not an anomaly from history, as some argue about the SMOM. It is not a unique situation as some argue about the Church. Edan is living proof that the desire of people to be free, to gather together, and to determine their own destiny can be met; it demonstrates that the Westphalian model and the violence it spawns are both failed artifacts of the Enlightenment; it shows the fatal flaws of Democracy and how to remove them; it exposes the false sichotomy in current economic thought with clear alternatives.

  Edan is also not a religious power but rather a secular power. The Church and the SMOM are often dismissed as being 'religious' as if this reduced their diplomatic or cultural relevance. Edan is a Nation, pure and simple, and cannot be dismissed similarly.

  And Edan is not based upon ethnic or racial criteria. One is born a Romani or, perhaps, marries into a Romani family; people who are not born Navajo cannot become Navajo. Edan is not organized like this; while it has its own culture and identity, these are not based upon genetic heritage, making Edan universal, not racial.

  We are, yes, building a better country both for ourselves and for others to see that it can be done. 

Why the Kingdom of Edan Exists

A question that is asked more by people who are not already active in micronations is, really, pretty straightforward - what is a micronation for? And there are a number of standard answers. Many micronations are for fun. "Fun" micronations have goals ranging from exercises in model government and debating to playing dictator. Fun micronations can be a lot of fun and a few have lasted for many years. A few more are attempts to work out ideological concepts, such as a 'real' Communist nation, or a Green nation. And a few are serious attempts to make new nations, by a variety of means. This being said, the vast majority of micronations are some mix of fun and ideology; a model nation focus or based upon some core idea. People involved in these micronations tend to have a great deal of fun and learn a muchl about how existing governments work - both valuable in and of themselves.

A few more are a mix of ideology and nation-building. These micronations tend to have a core concept of politics, structure, and/or philosophy and a desire to survive and grow with an independent existence as a nation in perpetuity. Edan is firmly in this camp. Indeed, the goals of Edan and the tools that will be used to meet them can be stated clearly.

The purpose of the Kingdom of Edan is to create a sovereign nation whose culture, laws, and values lead to individual and community actions that further the weal of the Kingdom and its citizens while also promulgating those same laws, values, and resultant culture. In other words, the goal of the Kingdom of Edan is to build, maintain, and spread a just and moral civilization.

Over the next few days we will explain the concepts that underlie this goal.