HRM Jennifer on Hobbies of a Lady

Recently a prospective citizen asked HRM Jennifer,
  "What are proper hobbies for a lady?"
  Her Majesty's response is copied here.
"Traditionally, of course, ladies were encouraged to learn needlework and embroidery, play a musical instrument and/or sing, draw or paint, and be attentive to written correspondence.  I believe these hobbies were thought to be noble because they did not involve base labor, but were about creating beauty and cultivating relationships, which are both very feminine ideals.  I think, in our modern world, we can expand those concepts a little bit to include other, more labor-intensive tasks associated with creating beauty in our homes and for the people around us, including sewing, fiber crafts, home decorating, gardening, even cooking and baking.  Photography could be a modern addition to painting and drawing, a way to capture and catalog the beauty around us.  Keeping written journals, of your thoughts and life events, nature, current events, all could leave a lasting legacy, especially in our digital age.  Reading, studying, and increasing your knowledge and understanding of God's world is also always a noble pursuit.  Working and assisting those less fortunate than you can be a valuable use of time and energy, especially for single women.  In my opinion, exploring the talents God gave you is almost always a good and proper thing, so be sure to be true to yourself and your interests in your hobbies.  Remember to keep in mind the ideals of beauty and relationships, avoid those things which are crass or immodest, and always seek God's glory."

The Loss of the True Hero

[From HRH Jonathan]

All through our life, we are told stories. Young children have been told stories before they go to sleep since time immemorial, and storyteller is one of the oldest universal professions; being found everywhere from Scandinavia to China. This is because stories have power. It has been known that a good story can influence human thought since good stories have been told. Men have lived for stories, died for stories, and dedicated themselves to what ultimately comes down to nothing more than a story. It disturbs me, then, that the most important and most influencing part of the story has been so changed in the last century. The Hero has been lost, for what is now claimed to be the hero is in truth a different creature entirely.

Let us look at the modern, “hero,” who first appeared in the 1940s and 50s, but has come to true dominance today. Let us look at the protagonists loved and embodied in popular culture today. Ignoring for a moment the diabolical trend of the anti-hero, let us look at famous fictional characters such as Iron Man or Spider-man or the Doctor or any of the other heroes so popular now.

These are characters that you look at and say, “That could be me.” You watch them or read about them, and in all their actions you always think how you would be so similar if you were in there shoes. If you were Iron Man or Spider-man, you would party and abuse your power until the very moment when the chips came down. You look and think, “Wow, they have flaws just like me. They could be me. Why, all I need is superpowers or to be the survivor of an apocalyptic event, and I could be just like them!”

Now contrast this with what a hero has always been. This archetype, which still survives today, but is shrinking and shrinking with each passing year, is a character you see and say, “I wish I could be like that.” You read and you watch, and as the character develops, you think about how wonderful it could be if you emulated the character. You see characters like Beowulf or Gawain, and wonder silently to yourself whether you would be like them or like their enemies if you had their power and strength. The traditional hero makes you think, “Wow, look at what they are willing to do. If I could be even a little like that, maybe I could be pretty good too.”

The difference is small, but it is critical. Unless we try very hard to prevent it, identification with a fictional character will change the way we think. The difference between thinking, “All I need is a power, then I'll be a hero.” and thinking “All I need is virtue, then I'll be like a hero.” is vast. The fact is that few among mankind could be heroes if they had the opportunity, and that number will be far fewer when those who see the opportunity think that the only difference between a hero and a man is strength.

The hero of a story should be a tool of the storyteller to make his audience think of how much they could improve if they made themselves like this unattainable archetype, not a tool to reassure them that their lives aren't that bad. The larger than life archetype of inspiring virtue has been replaced with an exactly realistic archetype of just some man who barely holds it together as a moral person. In the name of realism and a good story, what the story is supposed to be has been destroyed.

And it makes sense, when you think about it, that the story would be destroyed in modern times. Just look and remember for a moment what I wrote in my previous article. The paradigm of democratic thought will not bear something to be possible for one group and impossible for another. If we can't make everyone as virtuous as heroes, then we shall make heroes as virtuous as everyone. The larger than life is no longer greeted with a chuckle at worst and an inspiring thought at best, but with a scowl every time; because it reminds modern philosophy that it is wrong, and there are some people who achieve what others never could.

So please, save the hero. Save the archetype, the ideal, the impossible dream. Characters such as Captain America prove that he has not died yet, but for every Luke Skywalker we get 2 Katniss Everdeens, and the spiral will reach its destructive conclusion before long. Everyone needs something that they can look up to, and if even one young boy is saved from nihilistic despair by an archetypical hero, than it will be more than worth making the stories just a little bit less interesting than they could be.

The Flattening of Society

[from HRH Jonathan]

The revolutions and idealogical upheavals of the late 18^th century did indeed accomplish more than most monarchists give them credit for. Although it may be true that they were little more than lawbreaking thieves and tyrants, they did cause an event of a sort rarely seen anywhere in the history of the world. A gross and total shift in the ideals and beliefs of an entire cultural group; that is the legacy of the revolution.

It was a shift that seems at first glance to be impossibly sudden and dramatic in comparison to other such events, but that is because we do not take in the whole picture. It is impossible to understand any historical event without understanding the event that preceded it, and the history of the revolutions in America and Europe is sadly often without this background.

The foundation for the change was built by the Protestant Reformation. The rejection of authority and dissent against the ruling paradigm that were the result of that upheaval led to several strains of thought which could not have existed if Catholicism had remained supreme in the West. Then, for a time, the larval forms of what we would now call nationalism, statism, and colonialism were the dominant forms of new thought.

It was through that that the revolutionary ideas were eventually born. It was against the fiery national spirit, constrictive statism, and cruel colonialism that the revolutions of England, France, and America were first conceived to fight. They were created in reaction to a paradigm that had become cruel and faltering through no fault of its own.

The feudal structures and hierarchical symbols that remained in Protestantized countries at the time were truly broken governmental mechanisms, but it was not their fault. The idealogical foundation upon which they had been built had been removed; any system subjected to that will break. The great revolutionary thinkers, however, did not realize this. They attempted to overturn feudalism, religion, and every other old way of running things because they envisioned them as all being constrictive and tyrannical, when the opposite was indeed the case.

The resulting Enlightenment philosophy and doctrine drove the violent revolutions in France and America, which inspired the rest of Europe to change their ways.

A paradigm of Catholic thought and feudal hierarchy was overturned in less than a decade. A handful of radical thinkers at the edge of society managed to thrust their beliefs to the center stage of public thought in what was, in historical terms, an instant. Equality, liberty, and brotherhood; autonomy, independence, and uniqueness; atheism, progressivism, and modernism; all are but the long-lived fruit of that movement.

We all know this, even if we do not realize it. Even if you have never, ever thought of this directly, those philosophical beliefs have influenced you. This probably isn't shocking to anyone. What I do find shocking as I run into it, and what has disturbed me over the last year and a half as I have begun to notice it, is how deeply the concepts of the revolutions have penetrated.

Like all complete beliefs, there is a deep, underlying assumption to revolutionary values. Just as Catholicism is only what it is due to a belief in the words and life of Christ, the philosophy of the revolution exists as a side effect of a certain belief. This conceptual locus has never been named, only its derivatives have ever had the honor, but it might easily be called the Philosophy of Self.

The Philosophy of Self is, in fact, a simple belief. It takes the ages-old truths that no person is inherently morally better than another and each person is entitled to their just measure of freedom, and transmogrifies them into idealogical giants. Using these things as the basis, not a derivative, of their thought, the revolutionaries returned to the basic questions of morality that had been answered eons before.

The doctrine resulting from that line of thought, and the movements that it inspired, are common knowledge. What does not appear to be common knowledge, however, is how deeply the Philosophy of Self permeates every single aspect of society in the modern age.

The core message of the revolutionary Philosophy is one of individuality. What the writers and instigators of the revolutions may not of realized is that by using equality and freedom as the most basic belief, they were making it the highest belief.

This would not have been a problem for other groups if revolutionary thought had gone through the stages of evolution normally embraced by a new philosophy. But of course, that did not happen.

The Philosophy of Self is a pernicious dogma to hold. Like all great ideas and successfully ideologies, it has a sort of appeal to it. It appeals to human nature. The philosophies of the revolutionaries have a unique sort of invocation of our desires to be free and unbound by rules, and they even have a sort of call towards our compassion and charity. After all, should not the lowest be as free as the highest? Is it proper that the strong rule by virtue of their own strength?

This appeal, coupled with the violence surrounding its early rise, gave the Philosophy a sort of momentum that carried it through the world. First it changed the governments of Europe, then that continent's economic and moral opinions, then it associated itself with progress and science. This continued and continued, and continues to this very day.

The Philosophy of Self has inserted itself into every aspect of our current lives. It has taken over religion, first within Protestant churches, then through the opinions of some within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; to say nothing of Judaism. It has trickled into culture, both current and classic. Even the literary romantics, who nominally were against the Enlightenment, used themes of self-determination and individual expression with reckless abandon.

How many times has fiction impressed upon you the importance of going against the flow? How often is the message of the day something about how hierarchy and separation are bad? How much have you internalized it?

The revolutionary Philosophy even became central to the assorted States of the West just as the countries of the West began to think of themselves as States. Because of that, all fervor, all dedication, all politics, all dialogue, all patriotism; every single action within the political sphere became contingent upon and dedicated to the Philosophy of Self. Everyone with even a spark of dedication to their country sooner or later has to embrace modern thought now.

But enough explanations, let us study the effects of this eminently curious development.

First we shall look at the example that strikes closest to home for me, and probably will for most of you; let us look at what this has done to the Catholic Church. How and what has happened are subtle, but cannot be ignored. Parish councils, altar girls, political discourse, increased focus upon the nun and the lay over the priest and the monk, nationalist tendencies. If you look at all the things that began roughly half a century ago that were never before seen within the Church and see the entirety of what has happened, you will realize that those branches which are truly heretical are only the tip of the iceberg.

The Philosophy of Self, you see, cannot bear to see one of its believers differentiated from the others in any way. If all are equal, and it is all about personal expression, then how can one person be capable of an expression that others are not? In some areas and minds the Philosophy is strong, and churches have been excommunicated due to truly heretical actions; in others it is weak, and we see only minor effects, building up in such a way that we do not realize their existence.

This is far from the only effect of the slow conversion of the West as a whole. Look at the military, where even the eternal necessity of and dedication to pragmatism have done nothing to prevent women from being exposed to the greatest of dangers. Look at the hoops that countless thinkers have jumped through to justify religious pluralism; the constant efforts to insist that everyone holds the fullness of the truth, even when they disagree.

Look too at the most horrible and disastrous of the effects as the arguments of the revolution are taken to their logical extremes. Transgenderism, homosexuality, radical feminism, etc. If is possible and allowed to one group, it must, under the Philosophy of Self, be possible and allowed to all.

I look around and see a world where every barrier is being leveled and every rule broken, no matter how many reasons they had for being in place. I see a possible future totally counter to human nature. And what is most terrible is that because this is the Way Things Are, it is almost impossible to see. Even we of the royal family cannot truly escape these ideas, because they are literally everywhere.

One of the goals of Edan must be to enact a paradigm shift away from these beliefs, no matter how localized. Because until that happens and the cycle of the Philosophy of Self is broken to at least a few, the revolutions that fought the Church will still stand victorious.

Feudalism, Anarchy and Libertarianism

[from HRH Jonathan]

Anarchism is an interesting way of looking at the world. “Governments can only oppress,” says the Anarchist, “there is no need for governmental power and authority, so all it does is control and limit.” Now, there are problems with this philosophy which I will address below. Another fascinating political philosophy is Libertarianism, which is closely related to Anarchy. “Freedom and the respect of individual rights is the highest good,” says the Libertarian, “governments should only exist to defend those things, and stay away from other people's business.” There are problems here, too, of course. Then I come along and, in the articles immediately below this one, declare that a better paradigm of government is Feudalism, where you can enter into citizenship only by agreement, and can remain free of any government by just not swearing an oath.

Feudalism,although a newer word, is the way things worked before, and it is the way things should work now. Interestingly, it can easily be interpreted through the modern eye as a form of Anarchism or Libertarianism, which it is not. I think that it is important to show how it is not Anarchism or Libertarianism now, before people start getting the wrong ideas. Because Anarchism is foolishness, and true Libertarianism in its fullness cannot be reconciled with the Catholic position.

First, a little background on the arguments I am opposed to here. Anarchism is the belief that all government is inherently evil and disruptive. They say that it exists only to allow the few to exercise power over the many. There are many different flavors of Anarchism. Some say that there would be no need for law if capitalism could go unrestricted, others say that Communism can only rise from a state of anarchy, and still others hold that any regulation of human freedom at all, even the outlawing of such things as prostitution and hard drug use, is an inherent evil.

Libertarianism is closely related to this, often being little more than a half-step between Anarchism and sanity. Most hold that government should only exist to safeguard the rights of the people, and place no limits upon the people they are the government of. Others believe that government should be entirely voluntary, which is basically what we at Edan believe, but almost never manage to separate themselves from the pure freedom beliefs of Libertarianism at large.

Now, both of these things (but Anarchism in particular) make no sense when looked at through the great lens of history. If anarchy is the proper state of man, then why has government developed everywhere? If government is the only thing holding us back, then why did the Huns produce no great advances in science and art? If total freedom is the natural state of man, then why has Anarchist thought only existed for about 300 years? Everyone was free to choose to not be a part of a country or society, but almost no one did. Because anarchy stared people in the face each and every day. Everyone in ancient times knew the cost of anarchy, and no one was willing to pay it.

Simple common sense is even more destructive to Anarchism, and to a lesser extent Libertarianism. If there should be no government, only corporations, then who would defend those corporations from pirates and thieves? Security companies? What would be stopping those security companies from killing off their competition to form a monopoly? Would that really be market forces at work? If freedom is all that the government should provide, then what about the good of the people? Would you really allow slavery, indentured prostitution, and monopolies to form? And no, the Market will not prevent those things from coming about, it never has. If government will only ensure freedom, then what do you do when over-fishing or environmental destruction are perpetrated? Only a central authority can keep a business from doing those things, and the market actually naturally drives towards those things, not away from them.

But above all, what is most important is what the Church has to say about these things. She has always said that there must be a government to safeguard the people, and has never said that all governments should be disintegrated, so Anarchism is out. But what about Libertarianism? There are many people who try to be both Catholic and Libertarian, but I say that this is impossible. Let us consider, for example, marriage. The Church teaches very clearly that the only thing that is marriage is a union between 1 man and 1 woman, yet Libertarianism says that it doesn't matter what kind or number of people is involved, its none of the governments business. How do you reconcile these 2 points? The Church teaches very clearly that prostitution is an evil that should not be stopped whenever possible, yet Libertarianism says that it is just another form of business, and the government should have nothing to do with it. How do you wed these perspectives? And if you say you are a Libertarian, but only believe that business should be unregulated, you are not truly a Libertarian, but rather a free-market capitalist. Real Libertarians believe that nothing should be regulated. No matter my personal thoughts on the matter, it is quite possible to be a pure capitalist and a Catholic.

But still, there is the question, how does this mean that Edan does not espouse Anarchism or Libertarianism? I said it myself, all government aught to be voluntary, so how am I not one a believer in one of the two philosophies I've spent the article fighting? The answer is quite simple, Feudalism is not an attempt at no government, or as little government as possible, and it was not founded because freedom is the highest good. Feudalism is merely a different sort of government. It may be purely voluntary, but it runs on the assumption that everyone will be a part of something. Throughout most of history, this assumption has been perfectly correct, because the average person knew the terrible price that would have to be payed for perfect freedom. When anarchy is a stone's throw away from you, you understand why there is government. So Edan embraces Feudalism because it is a better form of government, and hates Anarchism because it is but foolishness that will perish at the first sign of reality.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

Happy Easter

 The Royal Family wishes all Edanians a happy Easter Season!

A Good Article for Today

About waiting.

Holy Saturday

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.

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.