Reflections on Lent, Politics, Life, and the Kingdom

  Once upon a time there was a question asked by a newspaper. It was "What's wrong with the world?"
  The modern world is a busy, noisy place. People carry phones with them at all times allowing themselves to bombard themselves with multiple forms of messages from around the world as well as music, news, videos, and games. This is so they can focus on what is important to them because the world around them bombards them with music, games, ads, and messages not of their own choosing.
  People are filled with frenetic energy; children study long hours and fill stacks of notebooks with repetitive work, yet knowledge and even their own test scores decline. There are more and more sources of news and information yet each new development is a surprise since no one expected it.
  The election cycle never ends, a constant parade of new names, new faces, new scandals, new "critical" issues, new voices, new experts. yet each election has 'surprises'. And after each election things always get worse, not better.
  Men rush through school with sports and clubs. They rush through their workdays with projects and lunches and travel. Women do the same. They get home to hobbies and entertaining, travel and art, music and decorating. Mothers take their children to art, soccer, math, enrichment, games, dances, and so on in an endless cacophony of activity for themselves and their husbands and their children. Homeschooling mothers take on even more with conferences, plans, meetings, tests and - of course - education.
  Their husbands do the same with hobbies and meetings and day trading and the lawn, lawn, lawn. Friends at the pub, sport, and discussion of politics.
  Why? Why all this energy? At the end of the day everyone is exhausted, yet as much as they complain no appointments are dropped. Why?
  Fear. Fear of reality. The busy, the make-work, the frenetic activity is to escape. Escape from ourselves and the world around us.
  The children are unhappy? You can't blame the mother, she gave them every advantage. The father slaved day and night! It isn't their fault, they worked so hard. The father doesn't get super-rich? The day trading was just a hobby and the small business just couldn't compete because of competition. The wife is cold and distant? well, she just doesn't understand her husband. The wife feels neglected? Maybe if her husband vacuumed more often....
  The modern world fears silence and still. If the reporters and pundits were to shut up for a week or so people would realize that no one really learns anything from them. The bloggers would be forced to admit that they are the fan-dancers of politics - busy fluttering with great energy but, in the end, there is nothing to be seen. Politicians would be forced to admit that they almost never utter a word worth listening to. People would start to realize that the government of, by, and for the people doesn't like the people very much at all.
  Modernism fears silence and still mainly because of one simple truth; in the silence and still we must all admit that we are our own fault.
  When the Times of London ran the article that asked "What's Wrong with the World" G.K. Chesterton replied, simply, "I am."
  That is part of the Church's goal during Lent. To have us all add a little silence and still to our world so we can remember what is wrong with the world. So if you are adding a ton of activities to your Lenten practices I urge you - don't. Take things out; put in silence and still.
  And every day remind yourself - you are your own fault. We are, indeed, responsible for ourselves. And our children. And our marriage. This is easy to forget when a text interrupts candy crush, hard to escape after 20 minutes alone with your thoughts.
  So we should all stop and be silent. Sit, and be still. Unless we are contemplatives, this is more of a leavening to our lives, a depth to our waters. Like the pauses in the Latin Mass; beauty, chant, bells, and song made more beautiful and more profound by stillness and bouts of silence.
  Yes, this matters to the Kingdom, too. Few elections, and all minor ones; important positions are for life; authority is as small, direct, and local as possible; government is as limited and small as possible. The Kingdom of Edan is meant to be as silent and still as possible, like the pauses in the Mass. Love and duty, honor and care all leavened with silence and stillness.
  So sit, and be silent. Take your children to fewer things. Do less and spend more time together in the quiet and the calm. Realize that you are the real you and that you are more in control when you do less.

Travel Advisory - March 15th through April 15th

  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has compiled the following list of travel advisories:

Should Not Enter (nations or areas on this list are considered of such high danger that the Ministry advises all citizens to avoid travel to, through, or over these places):

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) [tyranny]
Niger [armed conflict and terrorism]
Nigeria [Islamist insurrection]
Somalia [armed conflict and terrorism]
South Sudan [armed conflict]
Syria [active civil war]

High Risk (nations or areas where people face high risk of injury or detention. The Ministry advises against any non-essential travel to these places):

Afghanistan [unrest]
Algeria [unrest, kidnapping]
Central African Republic [unrest]
Democratic Republic of the Congo [unrest]
Gaza [terrorist activity]
Iran [tyranny]
Iraq [unrest]
Lebanon [unrest]
Libya [unrest]
Mali [unrest]
Mauritania [terrorist activity]
Somalia [terrorist activity]
Sudan [unrest]
Tunisia [state of emergency]
the West Bank [terrorist activity]
Yemen [terrorist activity]

Caution (nations or areas with a risk of injury or detention. The Ministry advises caution for all travellers to these places):

Argentina [active protests]
Burundi [terrorist activity]
Columbia [crime]
Cote d'Ivoire [unrest]
El Salvador [crime]
Eritrea [internal restrictions on foreigners]
Honduras [crime, kidnapping]
Mexico [crime, kidnapping]
Pakistan [terrorist activity]
Ukraine [unrest, possible renewal of armed conflict]
Venezuela [crime, protests]

Other (nations or areas the Ministry determined have 'elements of concern to Edanians')
Haiti [lack of infrastructure]

Europe and North America Abandon Democracy

  Not too long ago Ukraine descended into violence. While the overall story is oft-repeated the details seem elusive on most news sources, so please forgive me as we sum up.

...

  Ukraine is insolvent: the nation is so deeply in debt that it needs $17 billion USD (almost 10% of Ukraine's annual GDP) to meets its obligations and continue functioning, and it needs this money relatively quickly. It was hoping to receive $20 Bn USD in loans from the European Union so began negotiating a trade deal with the EU that would include such a loan.
  The European Union declined and offered only about $830 million USD in loans and their trade deal required Ukraine to change many internal laws, some of which had no direct bearing on trade.
  Russian then offered $15 Bn USD in loans with a trade agreement that included reducing energy costs to the Ukraine.
  Up against the wall the president of Ukraine was effectively forced to abandon the possibility of a trade deal with the EU and accept a deal with Russia because only Russia was willing to meet Ukraine's needs. This was announced by the Ukrainian government on November 21st, 2013.

  Protests began almost immediately. Some Ukrainian citizens who wish for closer ties to the EU began to gather in Kyiv to protest the trade deal with Russia. By the 24th estimates on the number of protestors ranged as high as 100,000 (although the actual numbers were probably closer to 20,000) and the protestors began breaking police cordons and physically clashing with police. The police responded with tear gas and batons. The protestors began being encouraged and organized by opposition political leaders. The protests also began allowing neo-Nazi groups to take the elad in violence against police forces.
  This is not hyperbole or Godwin's Law - actual self-described neo-Nazi groups led violent attacks on police where isolated groups of police were attacked and their equipment stolen to arm protestors. These protestors, now with riot gear, then continued the escalation of violence.

  Protestors begin assaulting and seizing government buildings, including city hall of the capitol, while continuing violence against police. The protestors used petrol bombs, improvised weapons, and captured firearms to attack police and used arson and burning barricades to distract and repel police. By the middle of January protestors and police were being killed as well as injured.
 
  At the height of the protests prior to any protestors dying the Ukrainian parliament passed anti-protest laws that sparked greater protests and more violence; the laws were repealed and insttead the government offered to release already-arrested protestors and offer amnesty to other protestors if government buildings were released. This exchange of prisoners for buildings was completed by about the 16th of February. On the 18th the protestors began their assaults on police lines and by the 20th had re-taken all the surrendered buildings and taken others, as well.

  During this same time the opposition leaders, who were still leading the protestors, were negotiating with foreign powers for loans and support for when they has succeeded in seizing control of the government. Aresniy Yatsenyuk met with Angela Merkel in person urgin her to impose sanctions and aid the protestors so help them take over the Ukrainian government.

  The opposition tot he elected government in Kyiv was being reflected in greater Ukraine with the Ukrainian-speaking West seizing most government buildings seized by protestors but the Russian-Speaking eastern and southern fringes marked with pro-government forces aiding police is resisting protestors.

  By February 20th enough members of parliament had fled or defected that the opposition parties gained control of the Ukrainian parliament. The president agrees to early elections, has his powers slashed, and several other changes occur in the next few days. Opposition leader Yulia Tymeshenko is released from prison at the vote of the opposition-controlled parliament. By the 23rd the opposition leader and protest organizer Aresniy Yatsenyuk is made Prime Minister as other opposition leaders are placed in charge of the Ukrainian government.

  As this is occurring protestors in Crimea, which is largely Russian-speaking, are rejecting the new government in Kyiv as illegitimate. The regional parliament in Crimea states that they will vote to decide if they will remain part of Ukraine and armed men seize airfields and government buildings in the Crimea. The brand new government in Kyiv states they will not allow the breakup of Ukraine.

  The new government also beings pleading with Europe and the US for - billions of dollars in loans to prop up the Ukrainian economy.

  The crimean regional parliament asks for help from Russia to aid it in its claims to autonomy. Russia agrees and sends troops too support the new Republic of Crimea.

...
 
  We have been continually surprised at the political developments of the last few years where ostensibly Democratic governments in Europe and North America vocally and materially support the violent overthrow of various governments in the world. This may be most surprising in Ukraine.
  Let us be very clear - what occurred in Ukraine is the violent overthrow of the lawfully-elected government by an armed mob led by the losers of the last election. This was not prompted by mass oppression, nor was it triggered by civil rights violations or the illegal grasp for power - the pretext for this armed insurrection was the government's refusal to sign a trade agreement that would have forced Ukraine to modify its internal laws to be advantageous to European nations without giving Ukraine the loans it needed to remain solvent.

  There are already protests in large cities across Ukraine against this new, mob-seated, government by Ukrainians that reject its legitimacy - if more protests arise led by the new opposition what side shal Europe, the BBC, and similar groups take? Will the violent protestors still have the right to change the government via force?

  The last five years have clearly demonstrated through the words and deeds of European and North American political leaders, pundits, and academics that none of them actually believe that Democracy works. What shall they replace it with?

"Reactionary" is a Poor Choice of Word [by HRH Jonathan]

There are many words for the movement I tend to refer to as, "Traditionalism." For any group so fragmented and with so many distinct points of origin, this is inevitable; but the number of names for Traditionalism exceeds what even those facts would lead one to expect. Social Conservatism, Traditionalism, Reactionism, Counter-Revolutionism, and Anarcho-Imperialism are all names I've seen applied regularly, but in this brief article, I shall discuss only the third one.

     It is becoming increasingly common for Traditionalists to call themselves, "Reactionaries," that is, followers of Reactionism. This is especially true amongst new converts to our fold, who have gone so far as to take up the name, "Neo-Reactionary," seeing themselves as a new flowering of a concept almost entirely effaced after the last fall of the French Monarchy. These Neo-Reactionaries have formed a rough internet alliance of respectable orthodoxy, though they often have weak communications with the rest of the Traditionalist web. They are laudably pursuing the truth, but today, I have one, seemingly-small criticism to level against them.
     I don't like their name.
     A very common topic in the writings of my father and I is that words have power, and also that their meanings are not always obvious to those who use them. These truths are especially applicable to the term, "Reactionary." A Reactionary is, rather obviously, someone who reacts. Someone who pushes back. Someone only interested in the status quō, the way things stood. Reactionism is, by necessity, defined in terms of its enemies and their choices. Regardless of what its followers actually do, the name conjures up images of people who do not think about the future, or care about what is right, or consider their enemies' positions; but are concerned only with the comfortable past. In just the same way as many have gone astray by referring to, "political science," instead of, "political philosophy," those who call themselves, "Reactionary," are unwittingly defining themselves as everything that is actually wrong with Tradition, and separating themselves from what is good

     Of course, the same problem may be found, with less strength, in the word, "Traditionalism," but I do like this term a good deal more. It is a good catch-all term, encompassing a large number of views; it is already established and well-known; and it is not nearly so bad as the topic of this article. In the end, however, there is not a truly good name for those who desire to restore Western Civilization to its full splendour. At least, not unless you count 'Edanian'.

Snowstorms in Atlanta and Leadership (a quick take)

  I am sure that a great deal of ink will be spilled for months concerning the snow emergency affecting Atlanta (and, thus, the royal family) but we see this as an excellent opportunity to very briefly discuss the differences between management and leadership.
  Let us begin with a little history. While serious winter storms are rare in Atlanta they are far from unheard of. In 2011 a snowstorm paralyzed large section of the state of Georgia and Atlanta in particular. This event prompted the governor of the state and the mayor of Atlanta to work on improving their winter storm response plans.
  In December of 2013 a large conference of local and state authorities and meteorologists gathered in Georgia to review and confirm this new plan, which was heartily endorsed by the majority of the 200+ attendees. It was put into place for the now-current emergency.
  In press conferences and interview the mayor of Atlanta and the Governor of Georgia are repeatedly referring to two things - what other people are responsible for and that their response to this emergency is "much better" than their response in 2011.
  In the meantime the city is gridlocked with thousands of motorists stranded on the roads in their cars with no serious chance of outside help; thousands more abandoned their vehicles and walked to what private shelter they could find; many more thousands are stranded at their workplaces with no real hope of receiving outside aid - which included hundreds of children stranded at schools; a large number, perhaps a majority, of gas stations are out of fuel and many stores and restaurants are out of food. The direct impact on the people of the region is demonstrably higher and worse than in 2011 and the only real hope of relief is to wait for the weather to change.
  So how can people in positions of responsibility both dodge responsibility and claim that their response is better when the results are worse?
 
  Because of the way they think. These politicians and bureaucrats have been trained to manage not to lead.
  Managers focus on reducing costs, minimizing risks, controlling the use of time, communicating between groups, etc. All very useful tasks and skills but, in the end, the main focus is on minimizing the perceived risks to themselves and their organizations. This is not a negative, it is a positive as long as all you expect from a manager is management.
  Leaders focus on giving people a higher purpose and motivating them to excel and, ultimately, on achieving the best possible result.. In the end the main focus is on achieving the best possible result of their duties and responsibilities. This can be expensive and will involve risks and can directly clash with the core goals of management.
 
  I believe that both the mayor and the governor fully believe that they are, yes, providing a 'better response' to this snow storm than the last. Why? Because I am convinced that they are using project management tools and metrics. A disaster response plan was created by various committees over time; this plan was reviewed and accepted by various other committees and by the conference members in December; this plan is being followed and they are checking off little boxes on the project management applications at a steady pace; reports are being sent to those who are supposed to receive them; etc.
  Or, in other words; responsibility was spread as widely as possible; many other managers agreed that this management plan had steps that managers could understand and report on; the various people who farmed out their responsibility are receiving reports from their subordinates that allow them to tell others they are doing as the plan tells them to.
  Or - each team has minimized the perceived risks to themselves and their own organization and can point to how they are reducing costs, minimizing risks, controlling the use of time, communicating between groups, etc. To a manager those things are what is important.
  In the meantime the 9th largest city in the United States, a city larger than Singapore, is effectively shut down.
 
  The lesson is clear: do not ask for leadership from managers.

Travel Advisory for Edanian Citizens. 20/12/2013 through 31/03/2014

  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has compiled the following list fo travel advisories:

Should Not Enter (nations or areas on this list are considered of such high danger that the Ministry advises all citizens to avoid travel to, through, or over these places):

Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) [tyranny]
Syria [active civil war]

High Risk (nations or areas where people face high risk of injury or detention. The Ministry advises against any non-essential travel to these places):

Afghanistan [unrest]
Algeria [unrest, kidnapping]
Central African Republic [unrest]
Democratic Republic of the Congo [unrest]
Gaza [terrorist acticity]
Iran [tyranny]
Iraq [unrest]
Lebanon [unrest]
Libya [unrest]
Mali [unrest]
Mauritania [terrorist activity]
Niger [unrest]
Nigeria [terrorist activity]
Somalia [terrorist activity]
South Sudan [war]
Sudan [unrest]
Tunisia [state of emergency]
the West Bank [terrorist activity]
Yemen [terrorist activity]

Caution (nations or areas with a risk of injury or detention. The Ministry advises caution for all travellers to these places):

Burundi [terrorist activity]
Columbia [crime]
Cote d'Ivoire [unrest]
El Salvador [crime]
Eritrea [internal restrictions on foreigners]
Honduras [crime, kidnapping]
Mexico [crime, kidnapping]
Pakistan [terrorist activity]
Venezuela [crime]

Other (nations or areas the Ministry determined have 'elements of concern to Edanians')
Haiti [lack of infrastructure]

Pride, Populism, and the Papacy - from Prince Jonathan

It is a truth often repeated by Traditionalists that the Catholic Church is not democratic. Something that should be repeated more often, however, is the basis of this fact. The Church is not just un-democratic in the accidents of her hierarchy and organization, but also in the substance of her underlying philosophies and assumptions. If the Church were somehow altered so that she was governed by popular vote, but was otherwise unchanged, or if the United States were changed to a government identical with that of the Church, but still maintained its integral character; then they would still be at odds. The modern democratic West is un-Catholic at a fundamental level, and in this article, I will attempt to explain why.

The reason is, in a word, individualism. It has been the tendency of thought in the West since the time of the American Revolution to declare that the primary, or in some cases, the only, driver of morality is individual freedom. The foundation of the democratic spirit is that the individual person is the basis of the world, and that society, government, and all else above him exists only at his sufferance. Unless he goes so far as to directly harm others by his actions, his rights to self-determination are paramount.

We see this philosophy everywhere in the modern world. It is the basis of contemporary secular civilization. Marriage is attacked because, after all, marriage is only an institution, and if a few individuals want to ignore or alter this institution, then it is their prerogative to do so. Capitalism is considered the only moral economic system by many, because it allows individuals to conduct their business however they please, which is the only moral way to proceed. Religion and prayer are removed from public events and venues because they may cause people to feel or think that they cannot live in any manner they want, and we can't have that.

It is this pervasive, corrosive conceptualization of the world that sets democracy and Catholicism at odds. But why? Why are they in opposition to each other? After all, the foundations of individualism were invented by Catholic philosophers. The fundamental tenets of liberty and human rights were first proposed by the Church, and are still held by it today. So how is it exactly that the Church is un-democratic and un-individualistic?

The truth is that much of individualism is built on solid ground, which many Traditionalists, in their rush to defeat it, forget. The consent of the governed, human rights, and self-determination are good moral points. What is not a good moral point is the equivocation of these things' existence with the supremacy of the individual man. This claimed supremacy and sovereignty, and, more importantly, the conclusions derived from them, are nothing more than perversions and misuses of philosophy, and a twisting of the basis of a moral society.

For the Catholic Church and the societal views she breeds accept these moral points, but individualism is built upon them. It is entirely based upon them, and admits nothing else. All it has is the individual and his rights and wants. In the end, all it has is "me". In its focus upon "me", it makes it all about "me". It is true that societies, governments, and other such things are most moral, perhaps even only moral, when built up voluntarily; but not to make any attempt to elevate it above "me" is foolish. It causes a strange sort of plague of hubris and narcissism whose bitter fruit we reap today.

Being raised and trained to think politically and philosophically only of yourself and your wants and moral position has not shown itself to be healthy. It has created a generation of people worldwide who truly believe that it is a horrid injustice that they are not allowed to bare their nudity in public, or who feel that they should be free to exploit the poor if it is done via contract, or who think that it is only fair that they should be able to dissolve marriage at will. And, furthermore, it has made this generation into an army of critics and would-be emperors, who deride and despise anything done differently than the way they would do it. It has made people hate any wisdom other than their own, try to tear down anything done against their wants, and treat themselves as the source of all doctrine. Argue with me about this being the result of individualism all you want; I have the brute fact of the modern world on my side.

These things, these beliefs and attitudes, are the logical extension and basic conclusion of individualism; and it is them that the Church is opposed. For these attitudes are the opposite of what is Christian, and are indeed an elevation of the spirit of sin. The world is not about us, nor are we the wisest people of them all, nor is it our place to pass judgement on society itself, nor are we the be-all, end-all of morality. A belief in such things can only come from the Adversary, because to believe in them is, however slightly, to equate ourselves with God. Moreover, to embrace them is also to embrace a spirit of Protestantism, which makes "me" the only true interpreter of the Word of God. After all, if I am the source of all authority, who needs the Hierarchy of the Church?

But sadly enough, this individualism is so widely embraced today as to be considered the norm by all. The Pope is criticized for his actions by lay people across America, Theology is ignored or mistaught by those who disagree with it, and all talk of duty or proper society has vanished from the political sphere. Everything is now about maximizing personal freedom, and optimizing things according to individual wants. The world is now about "me", and this deceitful ordering of things must be defeated.

Not defeated by collectivism and centralization by force, as the most devout individualists hold is the only other stance, but by a simple lack of individualism. As Catholics and Traditionalists ought to know, there are many things that matter more than us. If we want the evils of the modern world to end, I say that the best way to do it is to simply take on a little humility, which is, of course, the simplest and hardest task in the world.

St. Nicholas' Day in Edan

  As we approach Advent and Christmas we also approach the Feast of St. Nicholas, a 3rd class feast and a favorite of the Royal Family. Quite a bit of tradition has grown up around this day, the 6th of December, in Edan. What follows is how the Royal Family typically celebrates this day.
  At bedtime on the night of December 5th all the princes place their shoes on the hearth and then each prince places a single carrot into one of his shoes. Once the princes are asleep the King and Queen also go off to bed.
  In the morning the princes awake to find that St. Nicholas' horse has eaten all the carrots (leaving behind just a few small nibbles) and that St. Nicholas has filled the shoes with candy! The saint has also left each prince a small toy or two and a book.
  This is usually the first day that Christmas music is played in the royal household. Throughout the day the family speaks of the coming of Christmas and the meaning of charity. That night after dinner the King reads from the bible about Our Lady and St. Joseph travelling to Bethlehem in preparation for the birth of Christ and everyone enjoys some egg nog before bed.
 

The Traditionalism of the Present

[from Prince Jonathan]
  It can be very difficult to be a traditionalist some days. You are continuously mocked and decried as irrationally holding on to something long ago disproven, by people who themselves refuse to consider your position rationally. You are often betrayed or left behind by the political factions who were, mere days before, your staunchest allies and most energetic defenders. You are hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you, and when you do, you often find that they have a radically different focus, so that you only barely share the same views. Yet, if you have any measure of conviction, you will struggle on all the same, content in the thought that you have the truth. The truth about society, the truth about politics, the truth about the world; that is the nature of traditionalism, and it is that nature that we should embrace.
  For if we do not hold our traditionalism because of its essential truth, if we hold it solely because it is beautiful or ancient or simply preferred by us, then we truly justify the criticisms and hurdles we must so often deal with. Indeed, choosing traditionalism purely because it is traditional is, in a great irony of language, against the spirit of that very concept. Clinging to the past because we like it is, in fact, a liberal choice, an elevation of the individual over society. Pomp, ritual, and solemnity, or age, genealogy, and tradition are not sufficient reasons to hold a complete worldview, no matter how elegant and wonderful they may be.
  This is not to say that these things, these beautiful facets of tradition, are bad. Quite the opposite, they are good. But still, they are not the spirit of tradition, and should not be treated as such. If the outlook of traditionalism had always been accompanied by severity and simplicity, or if there were no rituals or family ties related to it, or even if it were completely new and never before seen, it would still be right. It would still be the same spirit with the same keys to moral order and the betterment of society as a whole. Traditionalism is the proper order of things because of its substance, not its accidents.
  So, to finally state the message of this article clearly, being a traditionalist does not mean that you have to live in the past. On the contrary, in fact; it means you must look to the future. We know the way to proper society, we know the need for a love of duty, for the rule of law, for honour, for identity, and, yes, for respect of what came before. We know that this is the way to build a better country, so we ought to pursue its implementation regardless of what trappings come with it. If we can make it look the way we want it to, so much the better, but this is unnecessary. These traditions of beauty and stability will arise from a well-ordered civilization no matter what, for they come from the spirit of tradition, and not vice versā.
  Indeed, all these magnificent rituals and all these trappings of civilization were once new and innovative. All traditions, and all things loved by traditionalism, were once modern inventions. If we wanted to truly go back to the way things originally were, we would have nothing. Regal garb and majestic crowns, ancient families and royal blood, etiquette, heraldry, and art; all once were newborn and just created. But even then, at their dawn, they were not against tradition; for they sprang from the substance of tradition, which can survive without any ritual.
  So, going forward, we must move discerningly and cautiously as we try to build tradition back up after the wars it has lost. On the one hand, we are commanded by the tenets of traditionalism to respect even the smallest things created by our ancestors. On the other, we must recognize that, in some few ways, the world truly has changed, and we only harm ourselves by refusing to change anything at all to match it. Change, properly done, is traditional; and living in the past, improperly done, is liberal. A great irony, perhaps, but true.

21st Century Monasteries and Edan

  Various institutions are releasing updated demographics numbers over the next few months and the initial reports are as expected; all of Asia is below replacement fertility, as is all of Europe, all of South America, North Africa, South Africa, and other areas are close. The global fertility rate has been dropping for 50 years and shows no signs of stopping within the next 25, especially since the fertility tempo (average age of the birth of a first child) is also increasing.
  The artificial gender imbalance caused by sex-selective abortion and ubiquitous ultrasounds means that the low fertility rates may be masking a more serious problem - sex ratios so skewed that the next generation will be much smaller than predicted. Areas of rural China have a 14 to 1 ratio of males to females in their young population (under 30 years old) and areas of India have an even higher imbalance, estimated to peak at almost 19 to 1. Overall these two nations alone have no less than 50 million men under the age of 30 who can never have a wife do to an artificial shortage of women.
  The impact has been horrific for women - human trafficking, ubiquitous sexual assault, and physical attacks.
  Meanwhile, the West continues to glorify hypergamy, fornication, and childlessness. Mass media dismisses the family and praises the ill and the dysfunctional. After creating an artificial 'teen culture' mass marketing continues their effort to sexualize all ages. Porn is prevalent to the point that actual art is being pushed out of public consciousness. And self-abuse so common that it is leading to mass impotence in the young.
  The apparent triumph of low, or 'pop'. culture, the dismissal of morals and ethics by those who shout from rooftops for money, the replacement of education with credentialism and the accompanying trend of people delaying marriage and children in pursuit of worthless credentials and the associated high debt will continue to drive down fertility well after demographic implosion begins to destroy the current economic system. After all, a system based upon the assumption of perpetual growth cannot survive contraction!
  And the weaknesses of Democracy are on full display as the various nation-states stagger toward the abyss.
  What can we do about this?
  Everything that matters.
  The core ideals and principles of Edan are focused not just on  the cardinal virtues but also on stability; Edan is meant to endure and thrive in the most difficult of times. How? It is structured like a family which, of course, reflects God's design. Rejecting the horrors of Communism and the dehumanizing effects of Capitalism; standing by the truth and rejecting relativism; maintaining and preserving high culture; reaching out to our neighbors in true charity. These are the things we can and will do.
  Some have called Catholic homeschoolers the monasteries of virtue of the current truly Dark Age. Edan will join them in preserving civic virtue in a world collapsing under the weight of evil.

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.

Choosing Illusions

  One of the most chilling concepts in theology is the idea that we choose Hell: the idea is that at the time of judgement everyone is presented with heaven, part of which is a clear, perfect view of reality, including the reality of ourselves. The damned are the ones who decide not to look, who reject reality for lies because reality is too much for them. The damned choose to be damned because, to them, eternal torment is preferable to the truth.
  Perhaps most people participating in modern politics are likewise rejecting reality for illusion.
  I have expressed my views on Communism elsewhere. It seems obvious to me that the various people and groups that still adhere to and promote Communism do so out of improper motives. They are, in the end, rejecting reality.
  Are the members of Democracies that much better at recognizing reality? The slide of Democracy to collapse is so well known and understood that some of America's founders opposed Democracy and, when they were overruled by the democratic process, warned the nation of the danger. The French First Republic was notable for the Reign of Terror, a bloodbath that presaged the horrors of the 20th Century, and for lasting barely over a decade before being transformed into an empire that started the first global war and transformed civilians and such into 'acceptable strategic targets' of war. The French Second Republic lasted only about three and a half years but was still riddled with riots, uprisings, and death and, again, collapsed into a bellicose empire. The French Third Republic fell to invasion and the French Fourth Republic collapsed under its own weight. The French are on their Fifth Republic, so far, and still cling to the idea that the concepts that created the Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, are important to France being a great nation....
  From France to Germany, the USA to the UK the rise of democracy has seen the decline of nations and, much more importantly, decline for the citizens of those nations. I am not discussing increases in material goods, I mean the legal rights and moral health of people. Considering the level or unrest visible in these nations, I do not think greater wealth replaces less freedom and degraded public morals. From the rise of nationalist parties in Europe to movements such as Occupy and the Tea Party in the USA people demonstrate that they know they are losing ground but continue to return to Democracy again and again.
  Why?
  Because, in the end, Democracy is a comforting illusion. The spectacle of 'the electoral process' catches the eye; the platitudes of politicians and pundits engage the ear; the ritual of voting lulls the mind; the continual, meaningless bickering between interchangeable empty suits numbs the spirit. The flashy pomp and weightless rhetoric of 'politics' is so ubiquitous that people become sick of 'hearing about politics' and tune it out without realizing that is the goal - apathy. Yet even those who want to change, want to make an impact stick to the same pattern, use the same formulas, try to 'engage voters' and 'frame the narrative' and 'create a grassroots movement' and on, and on, and on... just like the people they wish to replace for being ineffectual (at best) or corrosive (as usual). They don't realize that they are just slapping a new coat of paint on the same Potemkin village.
  The question that strikes at the core of modern Democracies isn't 'which party should I vote for?' it is 'why is it that, no matter who is in power, things never get better?'
  Sure, this constituency might get that tax increase/break they wanted, and that group might get the program increase/cut they spent sixty million euros lobbying for, but overall things still got worse; the economy is still booming and busting with each boom a little lower at apogee and each bust a little lower at perigee; the overall burden f taxes, fees, fines, and such still creeps up each year, somehow; the burden of laws and regulations makes it harder and harder to get anything really done and done well; but once the 'electoral process' parade begins most people get in line for the ritual of casting a vote.
  The Western culture really hammers us all with the idea that political systems boil down to "Democracy vs. various types of tyranny" and has done so for over a Century. The replacement of centuries-old, stable Monarchies with Democracies was of key importance to Western Democracies after WWI and WWII and we are still reaping the fruits of these changes in the Balkans and the Middle East. But the most stable nations in the Middle East are still monarchies; Lichtenstein is a beacon of success in Europe (and the citizens routinely vote down attempts to introduce more democracy to their nation), and it seems that as the Constitutional Monarchies of Europe degrade the powers of their monarchs their nation's see their own wealth and influence degrade as well. Yet, still, Democracy is idolized.
  Certainly, some few see the issues with Democracy and go too far, rejecting all government as inherently bad, but this is just another form of accepting the illusion that there is either Democracy or nothing worthwhile.
  So, what do we do?
  Start pointing at the 'electoral process' and laughing. Long and loud. Start asking the real questions, such as,
 'But what was the real meaning of the speech? Not the signals, not the opposition to another party - the real, inherent meaning?'
 'When did your life get better because of Democracy?'
  'If your duty conflicts with Democracy, what would win?"
  And be a proud monarchist!