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.

Sovereignty and International Law [guest post by Mr. Floyd, Edanian Citizen]

What makes a country a country? Is it the fact that countries have millions of citizens? Is it due to countries being in the United Nations? Most people do not think about this issue, which is a key part of micronationalism. Micronations, as described by Microwiki, the micronation encyclopedia, are “small unrecognized nations which are often eccentric in nature” (Main Page). Micronations are self-declared independent states that wish to become countries. Micronations are generally groups of people who declare themselves countries. There are hundreds of micronations that currently exist as simulations of real world states or legitimate new nation projects that have declared independence from their associated macronation, or what micronationalists consider conventional countries. There are micronations with many types of governments and diverse cultures, as well as holidays and customs, which are created by their members. No micronation has been accepted into the United Nations, but they have obtained de facto recognition through negotiations and visits with ambassadors from some countries. Because of legal loopholes, legislation and international treaties, micronations should be considered sovereign nations and recognized as such.

First, there are many legal loopholes that allow for micronations to exist in the world. One of the most utilized loopholes is the Treason Act of 1495 which states that “An Acte that noe person going wth the Kinge to the Warres shalbe attaynt of treason.” (Preamble) This is generally interpreted by scholars as any person acting as the de facto sovereign in a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations will be considered the monarch and it is thus illegal to deny their reign. One notable micronation, known as the Principality of Hutt River, declared independence under this provision in the Australian legal code. The self-proclaimed prince stated he would become a new nation loyal to England. The police came to his farm-nation as they claimed to be independent and did not pay taxes. After the farmer went to court with the Australian government, the court ruled it was illegal for the state to dispose of the leadership as they were acting with royal power over the land. Now, the self-proclaimed nation does not pay taxes to the Australian government and does not need to abide by their laws Another piece of legislations that is used by United States citizens declaring their homes as self-governing is the Declaration of Independence, which was passed by the Continental Congress in 1776 which affirms “That whenever any Form (sic) of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” This proves that the United States was founded on the idea that the people have a right to declare independence and to rule themselves through a government by the people if the government does become authoritarian or undemocratic in nature. Many micronationalists believe that most micronations are not in touch with the people and thus are not compelled to take their best wishes into account.

Secondly, international agreements and treaties confirm that micronations have a right to sovereignty. The Atlantic Charter reads: “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” This was signed by the US, the UK and many other nations in 1941. In a similar notion, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed in 1966, states that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status…” Self determination is the right of people to rule over themselves and create their own state. These treaties clearly state that people have the right, under international law, to create their own nation and rule over it freely.

Finally, the most well-known and widely used piece of information for micronationalists is the Montevideo Convention. For the western hemisphere, the treaty outlines the duties and of a state in the international community. In the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States,  article one proclaims, “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Micronations do obtain governments, and most if not all have full constitutions. A defined territory generally consists of the houses of its members. A permanent population is comprised of the micronation’s citizens, and it has the capacity to enter relations with other states if they are asked. “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states”, stated in article three, proves that even without recognition, micronations can operate as international entities. Article five goes on to state, “The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever,” meaning that countries have no right to impede the workings of micronations. This is explained more in article eight with the clause “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.” Even without recognition, this applies to any state that fits the criteria affirmed in the treaty.

        On the contrary, many people do not believe micronations are true countries because they cannot exhibit sovereignty over their land. According to Joseph Duncan, President of the People’s Republic of Tiana, “Well [if a person said I could not exhibit sovereignty], I'd say – ‘you're under arrest according to section 5, subsection 6, article 2c of the criminal code of the People's Republic of Tiana. You have the right to remain silent.’” By this statement, he is affirming the fact that micronations can enforce their own laws within their land. The definition of sovereignty, according to Webster’s dictionary, is “Supreme power especially an over body politic,” meaning that micronations can exert sovereignty if they can create their own laws and enforce them. This shows that micronations are sovereign states because they can be free from external influence through having their own government that creates policies and laws. Others will say that states must be a member of the United Nations to be a country, but nowhere in legal documents, unlike the declarative method to statehood, does it state that that is required of them. If this theory is correct, then no countries would have existed until after World War II and if a state needs consent to declare independence, then the United States is still a part of England.

        Are micronations legitimate countries? Evidence shows that they should be recognized as such because of current laws and treaties signed by major world powers. Most micronationalists would agree, “We have a government, a flag, and meet the terms of the montevideo [sic] convention.” says Duncan. Since many micronations meet all the criteria necessary to become a state according to the international community, they should be given the sovereignty they deserve. All legal documents say that they are equal to current states, so they should be given the rights they are entitled to have.

​​Works Cited

Atlantic Charter. Treaty. August 1941.

Duncan, Joseph, Right Honourable, Sir, MZP DSU OWC KBOS OZL ZPO HZW

KC MLEB MLLB, Prime Minister, Minister of Health and Minister of Culture of The Kingdom of Zealandia, Supreme People’s Commissar of Tiana, Sultan of Hakka, Member of the Zonian Parliament, Flanderensisian Ambassador to the United States, Marquis and Viscount. Personal Interview. 1 February. 2012.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Treaty. 16 December. 1966.

“Main Page.” Microwiki. 6 Feb. 2012. Microwiki.org.uk. 18 Jan. 2012

        < http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Main_Page>

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. 26 December. 1933.

The Great Flaw of Anarchism [by Prince Jonathan]

  Anarchism is, in its most fundamental concepts, entirely correct. The structure and concept of the State, as it is known today, is nothing more than a vast mechanism for tyranny. It takes away freedom, harms the common good, and commits acts of unjustified violence simply by existing; all of which it attempts to justify using elaborate political theories with deeply flawed foundations. Edan is not statist. I am not statist. To be otherwise is to be fooled. All this I believe and admit freely, yet I am still not an Anarchist. Indeed, both I and the Kingdom are very strongly anti-anarchy. And how, you ask, is this possible? Is that not a paradoxical position? Why do we oppose both the State and its absence?
  Because we recognize the great flaw of Anarchism. We see that it has developed from its perfectly rational basic principles into a greater philosophy that is largely false. Anarchists do not just wish to abolish the State, they wish to abolish all political action, all authority, and the entirety of the social sphere except for economics and the family, and some of them even the latter. This is the absolute height of foolishness, and Edan thus rejects Anarchism, as I shall now explain.
  Man is, as a very wise man once observed, a political animal, and this truth cannot be denied. Throughout all the history of all the world, government and political association has developed amongst civilized men. Furthermore, contrary to the common belief of Anarchism, it has largely done so in a non-aggressive way. After the gradual collapse of the Roman Empire, there was no government in France, Italy, Spain, or Western Germany. This meant that the only people with power in those places were the land owners, and the only material order their employment of tenant workers. Over time, these landowners, these counts and dukes, made deals amongst themselves, refined their feudal (that is, contractual) relationship with their tenants, and appointed some of their number as kings. Although violence and coercion were certainly involved in some times and places, the origin of government in Western Europe was accomplished through nothing more than the ownership of property, which I highly doubt any true anarchist will criticize. Similar origins may be found for much of the government of the ancient world, though, again, coercion is not completely absent from history.
  And, once more contrary to the typical beliefs of libertarians and anarchists, Anarchism has also been found throughout history. Far from being the first authentically new political development in three thousand years, absolute individual freedom with no form of government or authority has been seen in many different times and places. We find examples in the Judges period of Israel, Pre-Islamic Arabia, and Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, to name just a few. It is not necessary here to rely solely on those societies incapable of developing government; anarchy has existed in the world through the Age of Exploration. Indeed, considering the nations that evolved in Southern Africa and Polynesia, it could be argued that even the most technologically primitive societies are capable of forming governments, though most of them abstain. What is interesting here is that all examples of anarchy found historically, no matter what their culture, religion, or level of technology, share a few basic traits: continuous, bloody warfare, the normalization of atrocities, and a lack of any meaningful development in technology or art. Every time it as been implemented, anarchy has had a terrifyingly negative impact on the civilizations it affected. Even the most stable and moral examples, such as Pre-Cromwellian Ireland, were plagued by war and violence.
  Now, these facts alone would not be enough to condone statism. The ends do not justify the means; we cannot use tyranny and violence to end tyranny and violence. It is, as the majority of anarchists observe, utterly irrational. However, it is more than possible to form governments and establish the rule of law without recourse to coercion. A state-like order can be created in a completely permissible way, so why should anarchy be permitted to survive? If a truly lawless condition leads to such horrid things, why do we not agree to create law?
  So we see that Anarchism is disproved by history, but it is not even necessary to resort to that approach. Reason can also be used to show its flaws, and to demonstrate that a moral society is neither anarchy nor the State, but rather a proper, feudal government.
  It is natural for people to turn a blind eye to the errors in their own position. That is simple human nature, and it cannot be totally avoided, only fought. Anarchism, however, suffers from a general naïveté in excess even of that. Possible abuses of its systems and flaws in its concept of legality are ignored utterly, or supposedly defeated with the argument that market forces will eventually lead to their destruction. Even the most legitimate concerns are given no thought, as a rule.
  For example, let us say that there is a particular factory that produces car frames, and, in order to cut costs and run more efficiently, they switch from their existing chrome-coating method to one involving a much more volatile compound. The run-off and pollution from this compound quickly spreads off the lot of property that the factory is built upon, and begins to poison the water supply of a neighbouring residential district. The factory owner has harmed the health of many other people, so is he accountable to pay damages and switch back to the older, safer method? How much money should he pay out? How is that determined? Suppose the people in the district hire one security company to force him to pay out a large sum of money to them, but he claims that he owes much less, and hires a rival company to defend himself. Or suppose that he even claims that he isn't responsible at all. What happens next? Who determines which side is right? If the side that is wrong wins, who can step in to fix it?
  As another problem, is airspace property? Can sections of the sky and upper atmosphere be claimed, bought, and sold? It's an interesting question when there is no central law regulating it, but it is not the problem here. The problem is what happens when there is a dispute. If a road-owning company claims that it owns the air above its property up to the limit of the atmosphere, and a air-liner company holds that airspace cannot be owned because it cannot be worked, who wins the dispute over the first company charging tolls on passing planes? Let's say that the air company refuses to pay the demanded tolls, so the road-owners call in a private security company that agrees with their claims to force the matter, and then the air company calls in their own security that agrees with them. If negotiations fail, a shooting war will result. This is something of an extreme example, but it is entirely possible, and does a good job of illustrating this sort of problem. In a state of true anarchy, serious problems arise because of a lack of authority. Does this not mean that, according to the very laws of success and failure that Anarchism itself upholds as its unique practical advantage, authority will inevitably result? Is it not in the common interest of everyone to not just agree on a standard convention for such matters, but also create some way of solving similar difficulties in the future? And since this authority is so intimately linked to defence and enforcement, doesn't it make sense that it, the police, and the military should be a united organization? We find here the genesis of good government, and, indeed, of all government.
   And so we can see that Anarchism is neither foolish nor evil, but the belief that it can survive for more than a few generations without descending into violence and disruption is most certainly the former. Anarchists are correct in observing that the way things are today is critically flawed, but they fail to see the flaws in their own ideas again and again. Ultimately, they are, as a movement, over-idealistic. Even if they do not consciously realize it, their system is completely reliant on the total or almost-total eradication of human stupidity, selfishness, and disputes.
  In Edan, however, we recognize that such a utopian event is impossible. So we reject the State, then reject Anarchism, and finally establish ourselves to be a voluntary government. We seek to create the authority, stability, and public beneficence of a well-run State, while still maintaining the proper morality and rationality at the heart of Anarchism. Though this may be difficult, it is still worth striving after; and it is an ideal that we will not abandon for as long as the Kingdom survives.

A Royal Address for the week of September 1st, 2013

To the Citizens and Nobles of Edan and the Peoples of all the World, Greetings.

  As global tensions remain high we have been repeatedly asked for our position on the unrest within the Middle East. To repeat a phrase from an opinion issued during the revolt in Libya,

"We have watched the various rebellions in the Middle East with the sadness that comes from having predicted the events years ago and realizing that these revolts are in response to the natural desire for a proper, personal government based upon joint moral obligations and that successful rebellions may, in the long term, be worse than the status quo because the rebels only know what they do not want"

  It brings us no joy to see our predictions proven correct in Libya, Egypt, and other, similar, nations.  We are no champion of dictators, but the current chaos was too predictable to make the time, methods, and actors of change more palatable.
  Syria is slightly different. Assad does not embrace the core concepts of Edan, but the forces that have been fighting to overthrow him are, again, no more palatable. The recent apparent use of chemical weapons has attracted increased foreign scrutiny of this terrible conflict, but no more clarity and certainly no greater moral standing on any side.
  Before continuing, let us make clear a few points. Edan currently has no citizens within the borders of Syria unless they are currently travelling; Edan has no level of diplomatic exchange with Syria; Edan has no economic interests in or related to Syria or the Syrian government.
  The Assad regime is the recognized legitimate government of Syria by international treaty, diplomatic relations, and UN membership. According to the Montevideo Convention (to whom the United States is a signatory but Syria is not) which in article 3 states that,

“The state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.”

  and in article 8 states,

“No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

  Together these show that the United States is bound to treat the Syrian government's defense of its own integrity against either internal rebellion or outside subversion as legal and internal and to not interfere in this conflict unless the Syrian government requests it.
  The United States being bound by this convention could be argued to not apply to Syria, which is not a signatory. However, the United States, France, and Syria are all members of the United Nations and signatories to the UN Charter, which has the legal power of a treaty. The UN Charter repeats the provisions of the Montevideo Convention in slightly different language including article 2, paragraph 4 which states,

"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

  And in article 51 states,

 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self- defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”

  Together, these clearly state that unless the United Nations Security Council authorizes such intervention no UN member can legally do the things being publicly debated by various members of the UN, including 'limited strikes' or 'regime change'.
  There are some claims that [paraphrase] 'the use of chemical weapons allows [some nation or group] to directly intervene in the absence of UN Security Council approval'.  We assume this is a reference the the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which permits slightly more broad action of its signatories.
  This is, bluntly, false. The CWC only permits assistance and cooperation between signatories, it does not allow various signatories to pursue unilateral international actions against other members who violate the treaty. Further, even if it did, it only permits actions by and between entities which are members of the CWC - and Syria is not a CWC signatory.

  Let us be clear; we are not so naive as to think that 'international law' is more than a vague hope for some and a thin screen for realpolitik for others. At the same time, however, treaties are meant to be as binding as internal laws upon their signatories. This is certainly the conceit of the United States as it attempts to use treaties to force internal change upon other nations in its pursuit of American tax revenue. If the United States demands that other signatories cleave to the letter and spirit of a tax treaty, should they not be expected by other nations to do the same regarding the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, etc?
  Certainly the United States is not alone. Great Britain was eager to likewise violate a variety of its treaties, as France remains.
  Thus, before we even grapple with the uncertainty of who is at fault for the origin of Syria's internal strife, who performed the chemical weapons attacks (and there have been at least 4), or the moral standing of any of the parties involved we must understand that this is, in the end, Syria's war to fight.