Motivation, Means, Ends, Propaganda,and Why Telling the Truth can be Evil

  Recently a topic came up where a person who makes their living as a blogger reposted a propaganda film supposedly issued by the North Korean government. He was pointing out that the (rather long, as such things go) film seemed accurate in its assessment of American culture, especially pop culture. I objected to this for two reasons: first, the vapidity of pop culture is no secret; and second, this is actually assisting North Korea's propaganda.
  At this point the writer, and others, disagreed stating (paraphrase) 'its true, so repeating it is OK,even good'. As I tried to explain why this is not the case the response was just a series of variations of 'but its true'. But does the fact that you are stating something that is true mean you are not performing or participating in an evil act?
  Of course not!
  Once more we must point out that just as you cannot separate means from ends you cannot separate motivation from means or ends. Robbing a bank to fund an orphanage is not a good act. Raising funds through charitable means for an orphanage is good, but doing so for the internal motivation of vanity is not. Quietly speaking to a friend about his gaffes during a speech and offering to coach him on public speaking is a good act; publicly mocking him and regaling others with tales of his failures is not a good act.
  But how can repeating well-known things be improper? After all,  'defamation' traditionally means 'to harm another by revealing facts not generally known', not 'commonly known things'. Again, we must look at motivation, ends, and means. Let's use an example.

  In the 1930's various journalists, religious leaders, and others warned of the rise of organized crime in America. They discussed the influence and power of these criminal groups and urged others to oppose their bribery and threats to weaken them and return control to proper civil authority. In these cases we know their motivations (they stated what their motivations were - improvement of civil society - and confirmed it with their actions), we know their means (public discussion of facts and the presentations of strategies to oppose crime), and we know their desired ends (reduction in crime and lawlessness). Their use of the facts was good because their demonstrable motivations, means, and desired ends were neutral or good.
At the same time the National Socialists of Germany were writing about how degenerate America was, pointing out that many of its urban areas were controlled by gangsters. They were speaking of the same facts as were the journalists and reformers in America - does this mean repeating the propaganda of the Nazis was good, or at worst neutral? After all, they were just telling the truth!
  But we know the motivations of the Nazis (they told us they wished to undermine American society and weaken it, which their actions confirmed), we know their means (public disclosure of the facts), and their desired ends (the political and military defeat of the United States). So we can conclude that the Nazi's use of the very same facts was evil because their demonstrable motivations, means, and dersired ends were evil or neutral. 

  Now we must speak of association and support. During the time period of the example people who repeated and spread the articles of journalists and activists about crime were seen as doing good by educating others while people who repeated the Nazi's articles about the same facts were seen as subversive and evil. Why? After all, even if the Nazis were enemies, they were right, weren't they? Members of the various National Socialist groups in the UK and USA weren't lying, were they? So why were they looked down on while others were winning civic awards for discussing the exact same facts?
  This is because of association and reputation. The journalists and such were doing good while the Nazis were doing evil. When you repeat the words of another in a direct manner you are associating your own reputation with their actions and words; you are basically giving your assent to not just the facts but also their motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known). Whatever legitimacy, trust, or positive reputation you have is being imputed not just to the facts but also to the motivations (if known), means and desired ends (if known).
  Indeed, this is one of the primary goals of propaganda - to tell the truth in such a way that it defames the enemies of the propagandists while also adding to the credibility and positive reputation of the propagandists by having others repeat it. This is why propaganda posters have eye-catching art, why propaganda fliers include attractive, humorous drawings, why propaganda songs are as 'catchy' as possible, and why propaganda speeches come from the mouths of professional orators.
  And why propagandists engage in defamation as much as they do in slander and libel.
  Luckily, the vast majority of such information in the world is just information; an encyclopedia has no motivation other than to present data and no desired ends other than presenting data - repeating such information has no moral dimension other than what the person repeating it gives it. But we must still be careful of what we repeat and why.

Non-Territorial Nations - What is Edan Doing?!

  As explained with admirable efficiency by geographer Matt Rosenberg; 

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

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

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

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

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

  Which we will get to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After Bastille Day

O God, who didst call thy servant Louis of France to an earthly throne that he might advance thy heavenly kingdom, and didst give him zeal for thy Church and love for thy people: Mercifully grant that we who commemorate him this day may be fruitful in good works, and attain to the glorious crown of thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. 

The Truly Lost

  I had an interesting encounter yesterday, one that was illuminating while failing to be enjoyable. The Kingdom is not as active on social media as we are told we 'should' be, but from time to time I will spend some energy on twitter. Yesterday I made a rather tangental reply to the tweet of a young Catholic lady. It turned out that each of us had been unclear (I blame the terse format) and off we went.
  But others, followers of the young lady, were incensed by my statement. Three young men in general, one of them in particular, were very openly angry about my statement. Despite my attempts to point out that they had made the same error as the young lady I was replying to, thus their emotions were based on a misapprehension, they grew more and more angry. Slurs, curses, and vile invective of all sorts spewed forth as this young man worked himself into a lather.
  He accused me of wishing to grind others (particularly children!) under the boot heel of tyranny; that I am a power-mad dictator in waiting, eager to oppress and enslave the entire world in my mad thirst for conquest. In between curses he also threw in such epithets as 'tyrant' and 'big government stooge' but the slur he obviously felt was the most powerful and dirtiest thing he could call me was 'statist'.
  By now you are probably making assumptions about the topic in discussion. Was he furious at me for being a Monarchist? No. Was it that I am a king? No. Was it my rejection of Democracy? No. Was it the structure or nature of Edan? No.Was it about Edan being officially Catholic? No. Was it the most common topic of outrage from outsiders, that women do not get the vote in Edan? No.
  This young man was full of rage because he mistakenly thought I advocate for a requirement that children have a permit for lemonade stands.
  Yes, his fury was about food safety permits for children. I had mistakenly thought the young lady was speaking about professional (adult) vendors and she mistakenly thought I was discussing children in their own family's yards. Regardless of my attempts to tell these young men my actual topic, they refused to believe it. I believe they wished to revel in their righteous anger.
  Early on I almost terminated the conversation, but I persisted. Why? I was curious as to how angry they would become and hoped that their emotional state would reveal why they were so angry. And I believe that these young men did teach me something, something important.
  These young men feel powerless. And this is no illusion, they largely are powerless. They were all Americans, White, male, and under the age of 26. While I read online many people calling this combination one of 'privilege', I disagree. They have no real economic power, no political influence, they have no 'leaders' who are not corporate-controlled entertainers, and there is no special-interest lobby working for them. They face barriers in many ways - poor education, expensive education, limited job prospects, a legal system that favors others, and being told they are privileged, as well. Western society has been busily redefining their role for so long and in so many conflicting ways they have no clear concept of what they should be doing or why and certainly no higher calling, which often leads to a lack of higher aspirations. Secular, unchurched, or 'post-Christian Protestant' they have no underlying moral framework, religious community, or spiritual support to call upon. In short, these young men are truly lost.
  These young men are not stupid; they felt powerless, examined their lives and concluded that they are powerless. And they are correct - in any democratic system people without wealth or pull are powerless. They then tried to determine the primary reason that they are powerless and concluded that it is because of their government. This is also largely correct; the governmental system is the primary reason they are disenfranchised. But this is actually the start of the problem at hand - once they determined that the primary reason that they are powerless is the government, they stopped asking more questions. The next logical step should be to ask 'why is the particular form of government I live in making me powerless?'. That is the step that leads people in search of alternates to the system in which they live. Instead, these young men (as well as the majority of Anarchists, Libertarians, etc.) didn't ask the next question, instead reaching a conclusion. Their investigation went something like this;

"I feel powerless. Am I truly powerless?"
  They examine their lives and determine they are, in fact, powerless.
  "I am powerless. What is the primary reason I am powerless?"
  They examine their world and determine the government is the primary reason they are powerless.
  "The government is the primary reason I am Powerless."
  "Therefore, all governments are Bad."

  Yes, I am aware that there is a fair amount of political thought about such topics as Anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism, Libertarianism, etc. I am focusing on the majority of people who adopt these positions and why they do so. After all, a lot of the young people who do ask 'what is it about my government that makes me feel powerless?' end up becoming Communists, National Socialists, etc. because they assume anything else is better than what they have. I will need to write about that in the future.
  Once these young adults reach their conclusion, that all government is bad, then it is a short trip to the belief that any regulation is bad simply because a government must exist to enforce it. Before too long this can lead to the conclusion that any form of authority is bad and that Anarchy is the only solution.
  Again, how can you blame these young adults? They have never been taught about true alternatives to the world they live in, they have often never been trained to question. They instinctively know something is wrong and are doing their level best to identify and correct the problem. They have never been taught about morals and ethics and in the absence of knowledge of actual morality they struggle to build a framework so that they can identify Good and Evil. Since the only certainty they have been able to build for themselves is Government = Bad their natural passion for goodness and justice is funneled into opposition to government.
  Thus, belief that someone wants kids to get a permit for lemonade drives them to righteous fury. In the absence of a real knowledge of good and evil; in a society that fails to guide them to their place in the world; in a culture that mocks concepts of honor, duty, and courtesy; and in a milieu that praises license as liberty it is almost all they have.
  My question for you is - how do we reach these people? How do we break through to them and show them a larger world? How do we teach them true morality and save them?

Tolerance vs. Abhorrence

  What do you think or say when someone tells you they are a neo-Nazi? I assume that you at least check to see if they are just being shocking, but you probably distance yourself from them quickly. And why shouldn't you? The Nazi Party engaged in horrible atrocities and were responsible for a system of oppression that resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. The swastika, the symbol of the Nazis, is banned in some places and is shunned as a symbol of death and evil. Mein Kampf, the book written by the leader of the Nazis is likewise banned in some nations and it can be difficult to find or purchase because of who wrote it.
  Now - what do you do when someone tells you they are a Communist?
  I assume that most people reading this know at least a few people, personally or professionally, that define themselves as Communist, Marxist, Trotskyite, etc. Are they shunned? Can they lose their jobs or end their careers by making their sympathies plain? They are not and they do not, not unless they are in very specific circumstances.
  Yet Communist and Communism-directed Socialist parties and states have resulted in more tyrannies, more oppression, and far more deaths than Nazis themselves ever dreamt of.
  We will avoid a discussion of if the the National Socialists were socialist since we are contrasting them more directly with Communism.
  I have long held that if I meet someone who is: of legal age; mentally capable of caring for themselves, and; educated enough to be able to read silently to themselves - and they are an outspokenly Communist, one of 4 things is true about that person:
  1) They are abysmally ignorant
  2) They are fools in the traditional meaning of the word
  3) They are morally bankrupt
  4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3.
  At this time, and for decades, the West is in the interesting position of holding one ideology, which effectively ceased to have any political power over half a century ago, as unacceptable because it was responsible for oppression, tyranny, and the murder of over 8 million people while AT THE SAME TIME accepting another ideology which is responsible for the murder of no less than 80 million people and is oppressing over a billion people with various tyrannical regimes at the current time.
  This cognitive dissonance is stunning, yet so commonplace as to be unremarked upon in the mainstream.
  Let us look at a small microcosm of this intellectual disconnect.
  Within the world of science fiction and fantasy writers and aficionados passions can run high. For example, two well-established writers are currently under fire for referring to pioneering female writers and editors of science fiction in the early days of the genre as 'ladies' in an article praising them for defying stereotypes and overcoming prejudice.  In this milieu the writer Orson Scott Card is, currently, considered Quite Controversial. An openly devout Mormon he is guilty of publicly espousing his religious views and opposing gay marriage. For his actions in promoting his own religious beliefs a vocal section of science fiction and fantasy aficionados - and writers! - are openly advocating that Mr. Card be forevermore denied an opportunity to make a living as a writer by not just boycotting all of his works but by agitating with his employers to fire him.
  China Mieville is one of the most prominent science fiction and fantasy writers of the last decade. He is often interviewed  has received plaudits and awards from several groups, and has even been given plum assignments as writer in residence or lecturer on writing. He is also openly and proudly Marxist going so far as to run for office as a member of a Communist/Far Left party and to write a number of articles and books clearly stating his support for Marxist Communism.
  To be clear, this is a situation where members of a relatively diverse group call for the total ostracism and exile of one successful writer, including an attempt to deny him a livelihood, for stating and publicly supporting his religious beliefs as a Mormon while concurrently lauding and praising another writer who is openly and actively Marxist.
  Card doesn't want laws on marriage changed because of his religious beliefs = monster. Mieville advocates the overthrow of all democracies via armed revolution and the imposition of a dictatorship of the proletariat in imitation of a regime that was more oppressive, violent, and murderous than Hitler's Nazis = a nice job and critical acclaim.
  And Mieville is far from alone! Other prominent science fiction and fantasy authors are also openly Communist (Steven Brust an, for example); none of them are ostracized in any way for supporting the ideology that has caused more suffering and death than any other of the last 2 centuries. But if you opposes gay marriage or call a female author a 'Lady Writer' and, well, your career is in danger!
  Don't think that I am isolating a certain genre of fiction unfairly, it is just an illustration of the issues at hand.
  Just as I do not tolerate Nazis, I do not tolerate Communists. Both have proven themselves false in core premises and each has demonstrated itself capable of producing nothing more in the long run than wrecked nations and mass graves.We should abhor the followers of both ideologies with equal fervor and denounce them publicly for their embrace of violence, oppression, and death.

The Declaration of Independence - A Failed Justification for Perfidy, Treason, and Terrorism

  America just celebrated its 4th of July this past week, a holiday which, I must admit, is fun to watch. It does fill me with sadness to know how little Americans know of their own holiday and the origins of their own country. Today, after a pause to avoid direct offense of Americans too close to their national holiday, I wish to examine their Declaration of Independence and the history around it.
  The American colonists had greatly helped precipitate the Seven Years War, a global conflict that resulted in Great Britain incurring massive debt and greatly straining relations with the Native Americans. In an effort to both rebuild relations with the Native Americans and to curb the tensions (mainly about fur trading and such) that led to the Seven Years War the King forbade colonists from settling the Ohio Country.
  This did not sit well with a number of prominent colonists who had invested heavily in expanded trade in the Ohio Country. Indeed, this profit-seeking is what had led to the armed conflicts with French forces in French territory which triggered the Seven Years War! Another thing which many colonists despised was paying taxes, even though these taxes had been levied to cover the costs of the war which they triggered and which was largely fought on their behalf. Be that as it may, the Colonists struggled to avoid all taxes and duties and began to resort to smugglers for many staples.
  The Colonies had long been a hotbed of lawlessness and they soon elevated criminals to a position of local prominence. John Hancock was a notorious smuggler and scofflaw. When he was arrested for smuggling riots broke out amongst the colonists who agitated for his freedom so they could continue to receive their illegal goods! When the British government determined a way to provide high-quality tea (a major item in the colonies) at a price even lower than smuggled tea while still earning money for the government. The response? Hancock funded an attack that dumped this low-cost, high-quality tea into the harbor so that colonists would be forced to purchase his more-expensive, less-quality tea. How did the colonists respond to this criminal-funded terrorist act that was aimed at fleecing them? They still celebrate the Boston Tea Party, as they call it, as a blow for freedom!
  Hancock was involved with the creation of the Declaration, as was Benjamin Franklin (a philanderer, scofflaw, and con man who notoriously took the King's pay to inform Parliament and the Crown of the mood of the colonies then played both sides against each other for his own gain) and a number of other smugglers, tax evaders, and general renegades. But the selection of Thomas Jefferson to actually write the document was a perfect example of the corrupt nature of the group involved and the lionization of Jefferson by Americans to this very day is astonishing.
  In the colonies living beyond your means was common but Jefferson took it to heights that even his contemporaries found amazing. Despite having a large, productive plantation Jefferson was perpetually buried under the debt incurred by his lavish spending on food, wine, clothes, and perpetual building projects. Despite taking a full 5th of the endowment of a college where he was trustee he still left behind so much debt his heirs were forced to sell the bulk of his estate to cover his outstanding loans and bills.
  But how did these smugglers, tax evaders, con men, and other reprobates convince others, usually common men, to fight for them and their wealth?
  Those not already on board through greed were recruited by lies and bigotry.
  The Seven Years War had had a lot to do with French territory west of the Appalachians. After the war Britain now controlled that territory as well as formerly French Quebec. The Native Americans of the Ohio Valley had much better relations with the French of Quebec and were more hostile to the colonists to the East. The newly-conquered Quebecois maintained their relations with the Ohio Country. Further, many of the native leaders of the Ohio Country had rather mixed views of who controlled their territory. To maintain the peace, build better relations with the native rulers and mollify the conquered French of Quebec the King of England sensibly gave the Quebecois control of the Ohio Country and relations with the natives.
  The leaders of the American Revolution cast this as the prelude to - Catholics! Yes, many of the Founding Fathers blatantly used a fear of Catholics settling in the Ohio Country to whip up anti-British fervor with Paul revere drawing a cartoon showing the treaty that gave Quebec authority over the Ohio Country being co-signed by Catholic bishops and the Devil.
  Combined with such events as the Boston Massacre (where soldiers fired on an armed mob that was assaulting them but which the revolutionaries portrayed as an unprovoked attack) some colonists were ready to rebel against their own king. The Declaration of Independence was meant to be the paper that justified what was to happen next - treason.
  It fails.
  The Declaration of Independence is singularly bad at what it purports to do, justify treason. Indeed, I have never understood why anyone who has read it thinks Jefferson is a good writer (there is a difference between 'florid' and 'good').
  The opening is wordy but weak, essentially just an overly-long statement that the Declaration will explain why the colonies are justified in committing treason.  His statement of basic rights is rather terse, considering the lead in, and unconvincing. And his contractual theory of government makes no sense - after all, the majority of colonists wished to remain subject tot he British Crown! If he truly believes in a contractual governmental theory this is just silly.
  Jefferson then goes on to admit that treason is bad and that any rebellion must be well-justified with about 200 words when 20 would do.
  And then the whining begins.
  Jefferson then lists reasons he thinks the King is a terrible, no-good, very bad tyrant:
  1) He vetoes laws. Well, under the parliamentarian system of the day, the King could, yes, veto laws
  2) The King doesn't rubber stamp what the colonial leaders want. well, why should he? The colonies were under Royal charter and needed the King's assent to enact their own local rules. If the King declined it was no different than in Britain with the Parliament!
  3) The King continues to treat colonies differently than parliamentary districts in England. Of course he does, they are different things. Indeed, originally the colonists were eager to be different because that meant they would have lower taxes!
  4) I don't like where the King calls parliament and other such groups. Really? 'It is far' is a pro-treason argument?
  5) He dissolves our local legislative groups when they refuse to enforce the law. I think this is one of the funnier complaints. Why? Well, it shows that even if the colonies didn't have seats in Parliament they did have local version of Parliament (which is also admitted above, twice) and that these could pass laws with the King's consent (again, already admitted) and that they had refused to obey the King's alw, so they had at least some authority. In other words, some of the complaints in the Declaration nullify many of the other complaints. "We don't have access to Parliament!' vs. 'He won't let our local Parliaments do whatever they want!'.
  6) When the local legislatures refuse to enforce the King's laws he doesn't let us create another legislature just like it right away. Well, why would he? If the local legislature keeps being run by crooks, smugglers, and rebels why would he let them return to power?
  7) The King is controlling immigration and territorial expansion. So the King is controlling access to and the growth of his colonies? How dare he! I mean, its not like we just had a massive war on 4 continents about improper territorial expansion! Oh,we did? well, so what! We want to do whatever we want anyway!
  8) The King won't let us have our own judges. Well, considering the local legislatures are refusing to enforce the King's laws why would he expect local judges to be any better? I;d keep sending in judges I trust from home, too!
  9) The King is in control of the tenure and pay of his judges. So the fact that the King's judges report to and are paid by the King is an issue? Why? And how is it different from 8, 6, 2, and 1, anyway?
  10) The King has sent tax collectors, customs agents, and other people to enforce the laws we refuse to enforce. Of course he did! What else should he do?
  11) The King has soldiers in the colonies even though the local legislatures don't want them here. First, Jefferson is again admitting that the colonies have local legislatures, obviating a lot of the whining about seats in parliament. Second, the colonies are on the edge of a vast wilderness full of hostile groups and they just finished fighting a massive war. Third, since some colonists are openly urging armed rebellion, what do you expect?
  12) The military answers to the King, not the local legislatures. You mean the local legislatures that refuse to enforce the King's laws? The same ones that started the Seven Years War with colonial forces attacking French troops from ambush?
   13) Our local legislatures can't override Parliament. OK, this gives a little more weight to complaints about 'no seats in parliament', but why would colonies expect anything different than this?
  14) The King has soldiers here. Yeah, we heard you when you said that in 11.
  15) Soldiers are subject to the King and British law and Judges, not local laws and judges. Well, of course they are! And after the fiasco of the Boston Massacre, who can blame them?
  16) We can't trade with whomever we want. You are British trade colonies founded and protected at great cost to create trade with and for Britain. We know from the Seven Years War that the colonists had no trouble trading with the French during a war with the French started by the colonies, but that doesn't make it right.
  17) We don't like paying taxes. Who does? But that war you started isn't going to pay for itself! And remember that bit about how the colonies were founded by the King at great expense?
  18) Some trials aren't with a jury. OK - but how many? Are they a particular type, like contract disputes that are usually clear and a jury is only a chance for the guilty to emotionally sway other people? And is this a reason to commit treason?
  18) Sometimes we are put on trial in England. England is the source of sovereignty and the place of superior courts, so why is this a surprise?
  19) We don't like Quebec. Quebec was just conquered and is formerly French - of course it has slightly different laws than a British colony!
  20) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. I am unsure how many different ways he can ineffectually restate this same complaint.
  21) The King doesn't let us do whatever we want. At least once more!
  22) When we really, really refuse to obey the King;s laws he sends in soldiers. Jefferson keeps coming back to just a few points and repeats them in different ways over and over without making a real point.
  23) He is putting down armed rebellion with force. Not a surprise, really, and I wouldn't expect any less.
  24) He plans to continue to put down armed rebellion with force. See point 23.
  25) Some British colonists are pressed into service to fight other British colonists who are in armed rebellion against the King. See point 23, again.
  26) We are being attacked by loyalists and Native Americans, and the Native Americans are scary. In regards to the loyalists, see point 23 yet again. And as for Native Americans, how is that justification for treason?
  27) We have been nice so far and the King has been mean. Remember, the Sons of Liberty would routinely tar and feather the King's agents (being tarred and feathered usually killed the target, if you didn't know that) and others they would outright lynch. The Boston Massacre was incited by the Sons of Liberty bringing in hundreds of armed men to attack soldiers. the Boston Tea Party was the agents of  smugglers destroying government property to force people to resort to smuggled goods. If vandalism, riots, assault, terror, arson, and outright murder are "Petitions for Redress in the most humble terms" I have no idea what Jefferson considers violent!
  28) No matter how much we threatened the King he still insisted on his laws being enforced in his colonies. I don't know why I would need to point out the issues with this.
  Jefferson then concludes with a statement that God is on the side of the murderous, seditious, tax-evading, scofflaw traitors.
  The Declaration obviously fails in its attempts to justify treason and war. With its rambling style and muddled statements I am also puzzled as to why anyone thought it an elegant document.

Virtue, Masculinity, and the Manosphere [by Prince Jonathan]

  There are few political concepts which truly anger me; whether this is to my pride or to my shame depends upon your point of view. The definition of all morality in terms of freedom angers me, attempts to paint history in modern light irritate me, serious errors about the basic teachings of the Church frustrate me, and the increasing hypersexualization of the culture fills me with rage. But what angers me the most is the alpha-male/beta-male concept, and the Manosphere discussing it. This concept arouses my particular ire because it is one of those subtle, seductive evils which builds lies on top of truth so that they cannot be spotted, and has thereby succeeded in insinuating itself into many bastions of Catholicism and Traditionalism. 

   These corrupted centres of Tradition are known collectively as the Manosphere, and I consider them one of the greatest threats to authentic Traditionalism and Catholic Culture. Even leaving out those groups which embody promiscuity and nihilism, the Manosphere is still critically flawed in thought. It is barbaric, modern, and doomed to failure; although perhaps not through any fault of its own. It is flawed because its foundation is flawed, and that foundation is the alpha-male/beta-male concept. To sum this concept up: it divides men into two camps, the first, more common group being the betas, passive men who act with neither initiative nor leadership; the second, rarer group being the alphas, who take the lead and move with self-confidence. It goes on to say that since the essence of masculinity is action and women are attracted to men who take the lead, alphas are superior to their beta cousins. Indeed, it is often stated that only alpha men deserve to find love, since only they act as men ought. 

   The Manosphere is built upon this concept, and dedicates itself to cultivating alpha-ness; alphitas, if you will. It attempts to build up this alphitas in its own members and in the Culture as a whole by spreading the word and attacking the passivity of the modern world. It encourages men to take an active role, to date aggressively, to not be afraid to confess love, to not back down from threats, and to comport themselves well. What really makes the alpha-male/beta-male concept frightening and dangerous is the same thing that makes anarchism frightening and dangerous: the fact that it is built upon a core of truth. Passive men really are the majority in our present day. Those who refuse to act in a masculine way and still expect to be treated as men really are dominant in the Culture. 

   It takes only a bit of thought to make it patently obvious where this trend comes from. We live in an anomalous age, and one of the most dangerous anomalies is the ever-increasing passivity forced upon children by the Societal Engine. Passivity is the water that must be swum in in the public school system and the political correctness that it has birthed. Girls have a capacity to resist this, due to their greater innate affinity for passiveness giving them strength to resist its use as a weapon. Boys, on the other hand, have been ruined. Passivity is the antithesis of masculinity, and males have almost no ability to work within passive structures. Thus, authentic manhood is ruined, and has been ruined for generations; with only a scant handful of survivors, and even fewer men lucky enough to avoid the issue entirely. 

  The Manosphere, therefore, is a rebellion against the modern destruction of masculinity; and inasmuch as this is true, it must be praised. The Manosphere is an attempt to take manhood back and fight against the feminization pressing in on all sides in the modern world. It holds as its cause the defence of coming generations from the mistakes of today, and this cause is most laudable. Indeed, it is a cause necessary for the survival of civilization. 

   Why, then, do I hate the Manosphere? Because it has failed! It has made one of the most fundamental moral mistakes, and in doing so has made something just as inimical to masculinity as the passivity it hates. In the absence of a firm tradition, in the absence of any sort of precedent, and in the absence of guiding religion; the Manosphere has attempted to define masculinity as a negative. The alpha-male/beta-male concept does an excellent job of defining what it fights against, but it does not define what it fights for, thereby causing masculinity to be defined as the absence of passivity. This is a disaster! The opposite of being a follower is not being a leader, it is being a rebel; the opposite of loneliness is not love, it is promiscuity; the opposite of being shy is not being outgoing, it is being a boor; the opposite of shame is not honour, it is arrogance; the opposite of being a beta is not being a man, it is being an alpha. 

  All these things are obvious in the Manosphere; one must only look to see. So what is masculinity, then? Why, we all know what it is! It is what the Church has always said it is. It is the prudence and justice to know how to act, and the temperance and fortitude to be able to act; all in a masculine manner, which is to say, in leading and in sacrificing. Men are meant to lead, and they are called to sacrifice themselves for others; therefore, being able to do these things virtuously is the epitome of manhood. That is masculinity. It is simple, and it comes naturally, but it can only be perfected by God. It is the call to step into that area of the world men are meant to fill, and to do it well. All that this is is a particular application of the virtues. It is therefore blissfully simple and terribly difficult, and that is its beauty; because it is, in the end, a tangible thing, not a mere absence.

Melinda Gates is Throwing Away Billions and Calling it Charity

  Late last week Queen Jennifer sent me an article about Melinda Gates. The article is quite positive about how Melinda Gates is going to spend billions and thereby save millions of lives. Other articles are more measured, but warn that there will be 'push back'.
  Now, why would there be push back against a plan that, we are told, will save 'millions of lives'? What will these billions be spent on?
  Those billions are going to be spent giving birth control to women in the developing world. That's right, birth control.
  Please keep in mind that the United Nations Population Fund is already currently spending $1.7 billion a year on birth control and other population control measures. And that the United States spends about $750 million a year on the same goal. As well, every member of the OECD spends tens to hundreds of millions on population control measures (largely by providing birth control) for the developing world. Finally the IMF and World Bank both have their own budget to provide birth control to the developing world and typically make their economic assistance and loans contingent upon the countries receiving aid implementing internal birth control programs.
  In other words, the major governments and NGO's of the world are already spending billions on this very project, just as they have been for 40+ years. Why? well, until the 1990's the stated rationale was that the world was facing the spectre of catastrophic overpopulation. In additions to the tens of billions spent on birth control the period between the 1960's and the 1990's also saw mass sterilization campaigns (often forced on women against their will) and programs with stiff fines, prison, and more targeted at reducing birth rates. Since the demographic research of the 1990's proved that demographers of the 1970's were correct and that there never was a risk of catastrophic overpopulation the rationale has been changed to be that contraceptive use is 'good for women'.
  As mentioned in one of the articles linked above, some studies claim that 'contraceptive use is good for women's health'. Considering that the Gates Foundation wants to promote the use of depo-provera (which has side effects ranging from rash to hemorrhage and is known to cause increased risk of hypertension, stroke, heart attack, and cancer, is known as a direct cause of bone loss, may cause infertility and that children born of depo-provera users are low weight and twice as likely to die in their first year of life - and it may cause withdrawal symptoms similar to an opiate) and Sino-implant (II), a system that hasn't finished clinical trials and is not cleared for use by the World Health Organization, it is hard to defend the argument that providing these drugs to women is going to improve their health. This may be why the Gates Foundation also plans to spend billions developing new birth control implants, including, possibly, what is in effect a life-long cybernetic implant. Again, it is unclear how the expenditure of vast sums on the possibility of a birth control solution that requires surgical implantation and is then a life-long accessory is 'improving women's health'.
  The Gates Foundation, and many others, also argue that contraception 'improves the lives of women' and point to a handful of studies that purport to prove that women who use contraception are healthier, better educated,  and wealthier than their neighbors who do not use contraception. The article linked above from Business Insider lists one of the most often cited study that makes these claims, Joshi and Schultz' study 'Family Planning as an Investment in Development' which is an analysis of data collected in Matlab, Bangladesh over a period of 35 years. The Joshi-Schultz study is a favorite amongst groups like the Population Reference Bureau and other NGOs that advocate for increased birth control aid for developing nations. This should be obvious since the study claims that women in the Matlab district who use birth control have an average of 1 less child (5 instead of 6) and also have a higher (healthier) BMI, their homes are worth more, they have more land, are better educated, have daughters with a healthier (higher) BMI, and her children are much more likely to be vaccinated.
  That sounds pretty amazing, doesn't it? As you may well imagine, this study is a powerful tool in the hands of people who want to promote giving birth control to the developing world. After all, if giving women depo-provera can make them wealthier, healthier, and get their kids vaccinated why would you oppose it?
  Unfortunately, the data the study is based on, the so-called Matlab Study, shows nothing of the kind, in the end.
  What occurred in Matlab was fairly straightforward; between 1976 and 1996 about half of the 150 or so villages in the district were part of an outreach program where advocates went door-to-door offering birth control: the other half of the villages did not receive visits. At the end the women were compared, one group to another, and the women receiving birth control advocacy were wealthier and healthier. Thus says the abstract.
  But once you dive into the actual study itself (downloadable at the link provided) you learn a very different story. The 'Community Health Workers' that traveled door-to-door were "...women from... ...influential families in the villages, married, with 8 or more years of education, and who used contraception themselves." In other words, the women walking door to door urging the other women to use birth control were the wives of the village chiefs, etc., wealthier, and more educated. This is a fair amount of social pressure to conform and was obviously an attempt to influence women to emulate the wealthy  women of influential families.
  The study also very clearly states that offering birth control was not all that these Community Health Workers and their peers did. The study tells us that the outreach program included the following programs - pre- and post-natal healthcare for the mother and babies; inoculations of the mother and all children she had; oral rehydration therapy for children suffering from diarrhea; training of midwives; and training for the men about the creation and use of ponds for aquaculture, improved farming techniques, and other methods of improving crop yields and generating additional cash from the sale of produce.
  Now, some of these programs were extended to all of the villages of the region, but only well after more than half of the study was done. In other words, Joshi and Schultz are claiming that when you offer 1/2 of a region vaccinations, health care, training, education, and birth control and do not offer them to the other half the reason that the women and children from the first half are healthier and wealthier is because they had access to birth control!
  It is obvious from the actual studies that what made the women from the first half of Matlab healthier was health care, which should surprise no one. Also, training farmers how to improve their farms made them more successful - also not a surprise. Further, vaccinating children means that children are vaccinated. It actually doesn't tell us much about birth control other than if women use birth control they tend to have fewer children.
  This is also not a surprise.
  Another obvious fact that can be gleaned from Matlab and the rest of the world is that if Melinda Gates really wanted to help women she wouldn't be spending billions of dollars duplicating the efforts of the largest governments and NGOs in the world, she should be spending it on oral rehydration, training farmers, and other things we can actually prove make women and children healthier and wealthier.
 

How to "Win" a Culture War

  A lot of ink is spilled every year in America over what they call a 'culture war'. Now, America tends to be rather inward-looking at the best of times, as evidenced by their belief that Libertarians are "right-wing", but this is perhaps most obvious in the assumptions behind their discussion of the "culture war". First, there is an assumption that a nation the size of America (third largest and third most populous in the world) is meant to or even can have a culture. Second, that contention between various cultures can be arbitrated by public discussion and media articles. Third, that extant cultures aren't always in some level of contention with one another. And, lastly, that the two positions defined by the media are "cultures".
  In reality, America has a wide range of cultures that cannot be shoehorned into the false dichotomy of 'Democrat/Republican' without making legitimate discussion almost impossible. This can be seen by, again, looking at the Libertarians. Libertarians hold liberal social positions and liberal economic positions yet are called "conservatives" merely because they oppose the Democratic Party's economic platform.
  Yet people are heavily invested in this 'culture war'; people from various (real) cultures are quite busy in aligning themselves into opposing camps and slugging it out. And not just in America - similar elements may be seen all over the world, particularly in what is called the West. So what is really going on?
  We contend that the real conflict is between what can be broadly thought of as Progressive thought and Conservative thought. Not precisely what Enlightenment philosophers taught, nor precisely what Romantic philosophers thought, but very similar ideas. More akin to 'the natural consequences of Enlightenment philosophy vs. the antecedents of Romantic philosophy', but handy as a shorthand description.
  So there is a very real conflict going on, a conflict that is important. The Conservative ideals focus on life, emotional health, social stability, family, moral fortitude, justice, religion, self-control, and prudential judgment. Of course, its opponents claim Conservatism leads to hierarchy, stagnation, and prejudice. Progressive concepts focus on change, rationality, science, growth, and the erasure of class differences. Its opponents claim that it leads to moral relativism, chaos for its own sake, and unaccountable elites.
  Note: Libertarianism is thus properly Progressive.
  For the record, Edan is thoroughly Conservative; God, king and family are the cornerstones of Edan as they are for Conservatism. Hierarchy is inevitable, so plan for it and associate it with more duties and responsibilities than privilege; ensure that stability doesn't become stagnation; aim what prejudice there is against injustice. The fruits of Progressivism are the Terror of the French Revolution, the corruption of modern democracies, and the slaughter of the 20th Century.
  As a true Conservative I hear many other self-described Conservatives asking each other (and us) questions along these lines,
  "How do we win the Culture War?"
  "How do we gain a voice in the media?"
  "What is the most effective way to garner votes for our position?"
  "Why is our lobbying not as effective as that of Progressives?"
  These questions tell me that these self-described Conservatives have a problem that transcends their concerns. That problem is that they think like Progressives, not like Conservatives. Bear with me as I explain.
  Let me begin with an example. As an adult convert and trained theologian I encounter a fair number of outspoken atheists, atheists that wish to engage me in a debate. A far too typical beginning to such an attempt at 'debate' is something along the lines of,
  "Everyone knows there is no evidence for the existence of God."
  These people are always confused by my reaction, which is natural and unforced. That reaction is loud laughter. As someone with formal training in logic, philosophy, history, and theology such a statement is quite funny and I react as such. The mere statement demonstrates that the speaker is either ignorant or dishonest to the point that discussion is almost worthless. I have a similar reaction when someone speaks of 'The Problem of Evil'. I usually bluntly tell the speaker that Theodicy is a topic over 2,500 years old with many a volume written about it. If they cannot demonstrate their familiarity with the topic I will not waste my time discussing it with them.
  Does this surprise you? Perhaps even upset you? Does the fact that I bluntly reject ignorance or dishonesty as positions anger you? Then perhaps you are part of the problem, too.
  When a Creationist argues that the Second Law of Thermodynamics 'disproves' evolution, I similarly reject their position as ignorant or dishonest. When someone refers to the Boston Massacre as an attack by soldiers on innocent, unarmed men I also reject their position as ignorant or dishonest. Why?
  Justice demands it.
  One of the concepts of the Progressive is that consensus is or has a sort of truth about it. If enough people agree on a topic then that position must have some truth to it. This is a natural outgrowth of both Enlightenment philosophy and of Democracy. After all, Democracy largely is 'reality by consensus'. Because of this unconscious assumption we end up with such stock phrases as,
  "Well, that may be true for you but it isn't true for me."
  and,
  "If we frame the argument properly we will win people over."
  The first bluntly states that truth is purely subjective. The second subtly informs us that the speaker values agreement over accuracy; they see being agreed with as on par with, even superior to, being right.
  But this isn't how either reality or Conservatism work. If 10,000 people think a falsehood true, it is still false. Repeating a fallacious argument many different ways until it convinces some that it is true does not make the argument true - it just means you have hoodwinked a few people. There is even a word for repeating lies persuasively until they are believed; propaganda. Such tactics deserve no other response than contempt.
  Yet Progressives have not only continued to use them, many self-described Conservatives not only fall for it, they participate! When abortion supporters say things like,
  "A fetus isn't human."
  "A fetus isn't alive."
  "A fetus is a parasite."
  The general response isn't incredulous laughter, or mockery of the speaker's ignorance of basic biology, the general response is to act as if the speaker has uttered a reasonable position that deserves, even requires, a response! What has happened is that the Conservative has accepted the one of the core concepts of Progressives; that all ideas - even false ones - are equally valid if enough people repeat them; as valid. In other words, they start the argument by implicitly rejecting the core tenet of Conservatism; that truth is objective.
  The belief that engaging Progressives in rational debate to persuade people of the truth isn't supportable, either. Remember, Progressives believe that what they believe is valid because they believe it. Changing the mind of such a person is quite difficult and virtually impossible by appealing to logic and reality. Experience has shown that the undecided typically side with the very emotionally-charged Progressives over the unsure Conservatives. And why shouldn't they? The Conservatives start be accepting the Progressives' core tenets as the first step.
  Another example can be found here. In this article a Conservative man struggles to explain why Conservatives appear to be losing the "Gay Marriage Debate". Mr. Jalsevac comes across as a good, dedicated man who wishes to do good and help Conservatives. Mr. Jalsevac also has a very good point - the key is to be consistent in your beliefs. But he doesn't go far enough because there is no "debate" about 'gay marriage' any more than there is a debate about white really being black or up including down. Simply engaging with Progressives on the topic yields ground to falsehood by allowing them to pretend that their outrageous position may have some merit.
  So how does one 'win' a culture war? Let's look at history. The Roman Empire was a juggernaut; its military was unbeatable and its culture (language, art, economy, religion, etc.) overwhelmed its neighbors, sometimes before its military. Being Roman was almost a 'default position'. Then Christianity came along.
  Christianity rejected many core concepts of Roman culture, such as the traditional religion, ethics, attitudes toward marriage, legal concepts, and more. The Romans, seeing that Christianity opposed and would undermine the very idea of what 'being Roman' meant, outlawed Christianity. But in the end old Roman culture collapsed and was replaced with Christianity. How did Christianity triumph?
  It wasn't by lobbying, or stacking courts with sympathetic judges. Nor revolution, violent protests, or sit-in. They didn't picket, bribe senators, create PACs, hire criers to shout their positions in the forum, or create other 'alternate media venues'.
  What did they do? They lived their own culture consistently and refused to engage in the corrupt Roman culture except when (often quite literally) forced to. And the level of force required was often lethal. Sts. Peter and Paul didn't start their sermons with 'while granting that others may differ', they explained the truth and why the truth must be adhered to.
  Christianity prevailed for the simple reason it is better than paganism. Roman culture was already tearing itself to pieces, which is why it feared Christianity. That is also why early Christians refused to participate with it or engage with it.
  Consensus as a replacement for truth; manipulation of media; use of biased courts; enacting biased legislation by purchasing votes via donations; these are tactics of Progressivism rooted in the core concepts of Progressivism. To engage in them is to give credence to the false ideals that underlie Progressive thought. Conservatives who do this with the expectation that there will be a net gain for Conservative ideals are as misguided as Libertarians that claim to be 'real' Conservatives.
  Progressivism is also tearing itself to pieces, right before our eyes. From internal conflicts to the brute fact that Progressive just don't have very many children, it is doomed to failure and collapse by its very nature. Conservatives who attempt to engage with this culture, especially on its terms, are also doomed to failure.
  Conservatives will 'win' by simply being Conservative and not being Progressive; by living within their own Conservative paradigm and culture they will survive while Progressives self-destruct. Progressives pass a law on 'gay marriage'? Treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it. Progressives pass a law demanding that Catholics must pay for sterilization? Ignore it and refuse to pay until the prisons overflow with Catholics. Abortionists claim that unborn children aren't human? Mock their ignorance and raise your children to love life.
  In the end Conservatism and Progressivism are, really,  Reality and the Tinkerbell Effect. The Tinkerbell Effect refers to things that don't really exist, people just pretend that they do. Reality, however, it that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.
  Conservatives have to stop believing in Progressivism.

On Pope Francis [by HRH Jonathan]

 This may be a few weeks late, but it still needs to be said. First of all, habemus papam! Magnum hoc gaudium! Beneficium Dei Pontifecti Francisco! We have a new Pope to lead us. Let us follow his lead and plan in spreading and strengthening the Catholic faith throughout the world, and may he always be blessed.

Second of all, it has come to my attention that there are many, many Catholics, and some others, who are taking a very critical stance of our new Pope. People across the globe, especially those who identify themselves in the Traditionalist camp, are loudly declaring that the Church has gained a terrible leader who will undo all the good done by Benedict XVI. They point to Francis' inclusion of women in the foot-washing ceremony, his failure to revive the Papal Coronation, and his eschewing of regal garb amongst other things as grievous breaks with tradition; which can only indicate a slide away from the traditionalist spirit fostered by his predecessor. Some are either going further, and declaring that his show of humility is all faked, probably out of personal pride. A few are even declaring this to be one of the greatest disasters in recent years. Regardless of the fervor of their criticism, however, the one constant is that they all fear what Francis is going to do next.
Ordinarily, such personal, non-political opinions are no concern of the Royal Family. This opinion, however, has become so widespread among those whose liturgical views match those prevailing within the Kingdom that I believe a statement should be made.

My statement to those concerned about Pope Francis is simple: have a little faith. Do not let your trust in God waver because the leadership of the Church is not doing what you would prefer! Do not lose hope over a few apparent mistakes of the clerical hierarchy! But rather, have faith in God, for he has said that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against us. Trust in the infallibility granted to the Magisterium by the Graces of God; for if you only believe in said infallibility when it matches your preference, then you do not believe in it at all.
Moreover, there is another element, and that is that one should have faith in his leaders. Consider, for a moment, the Pope's position. Consider the hundreds of millions of Catholics across all seven continents that look to him to lead them out of darkness and in the movements of light. Consider the hundreds of bishops that he must deal with politically as well as spiritually. Consider the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the SSPX, and every other heretical group showing a possibility of reunion with the Church. Consider the billions of heathens in need of salvation. Consider the secular media that hates everything he stands for. Consider all these things, meditate upon them for a time, and when you're done, ask yourself, "Could I deal with that?" Do you think that you would make a good Pope? Do you think that you could stand before God at your Judgment and make a satisfactory accounting of what you did for each and every one of those groups? Because if you don't, please minimize your criticism of the man who is doing what you couldn't.

I do not agree with what Pope Francis is doing. It's not what I expected, it's not what I hoped for, and it's certainly not what I would have done in his place; but that probably means that I am wrong. Maybe we need a new wave of evangelization. Maybe we need the public image of the Church revolutionized so that the millions of progressives who would never look twice at the teachings of a supposedly corrupt and stagnant Church actually have a chance of being converted. Maybe we need more charitable action. I don't know. As a matter of fact, I can't know. I don't have the information, or the experience, or the graces, or the responsibility to shoulder, or the world to think about; so I simply cannot judge the Pope's actions except in the roughest and broadest of strokes. And I can almost guarantee that you can't either.

So please, traditionalists and liturgical conservatives of the world, restrain yourselves. Keep vigilance against the spirit of modernism, that dictates that what is popular is what is right, and anyone could make a good leader. Remember that the Church is not a democracy, and that you are simply not qualified to make judgments about her leadership. Don't let your criticism get out of hand. Don't give in to the temptation to pridefully despair. Maintain respect for the dignity of the Papal Office, because every time you fail to do so, the modernism you hate wins another small victory.

Prince Theodore

Last night Queen Jennifer gave birth to Prince Theodore. Mother and son are healthy and resting.

Constitution Day is coming!

The First of April is Constitution Day, when we celebrate the finalization of the Constitution. We will publish Queen Jennifer's Edanian dessert recipe (chocolate trifle with yellow cake). A nice yellow cake with chocolate frosting is also traditional.