Siege of Khartoum Begins

It was on this day in 1884 that the 319-day siege of Khartoum in the Sudan began with the rebel forces of Mohammed Ahmed, who claimed to be the "Mahdi" besieged the Egyptian garrison of the city commanded by the British veteran General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon. Because of his presence and the subsequent involvement of other European forces against the rebel army such as Great Britain, Belgium and Italy, all Christian powers, and the Christian forces of Ethiopia, sometimes one can get the impression that this was a clash between the forces of Christianity and Islam -which it most certainly was not. Some have also come to see the conflict as a war for Sudanese independence, a trend probably colored by the subsequent independence of the Sudan from Egypt. Again, however, that was not the case.

At its core, the war against Mohammed Ahmed was a war within Islam, a conflict of Muslim against Muslim and the forces of the self-proclaimed "Mahdi" should not illicit sympathy from anyone. The Ulema denounced him and his pretensions and those were extensive as he was determined to bring down the Khedive of Egypt himself and by refusing to recognize the authority of the Khedive he was also refusing to recognize the authority of the Ottoman Sultan on whose behalf the Khedive ruled. One can certainly have sympathy for the Sudanese people who, in many cases it is true, did not have the best life in their native land, but Mohammed Ahmed was not fighting a war on behalf of the people as some today seem to think. He was fighting to advance himself and his grandiose claims to be the messiah and in doing that he intended to overthrow every existing legitimate authority in the Islamic world that did not submit to him, which effectively came to everyone as no serious Islamic scholar could support his fragile case. He wanted to bring down the Khedive, the local rulers of Arabia and even the Sultan himself.

Some may tend to discount this as being too far-fetched for someone leading a horde of desert tribesmen against modern armies with modern weapons. However, what can be considered too far-fetched coming from a man who starts his campaign by declaring himself to be the messiah? No, this was a real and legitimate threat, a threat to the established, existing, legitimate authorities of the region as well as a religious challenge of the first order within Islam. It is admirable that countries of different religions were willing and able to come together to stop this threat to world peace and legitimate authority before it could do even more damage than it did. It is not difficult to see that there is a lesson in this historical episode for people today.

The Caliph of Islam in Turkey

It was on March 3, 1924 that the last Muslim caliphate was officially abolished and Abdul Mejid II, the last Caliph of Islam (and heir to the last Ottoman Sultan, his cousin) was removed from his position and expelled from Turkey by the first republican and then secular government of modern Turkey. Looking back, perhaps because of all that has happened in the world of the Middle East since, it seems slightly strange that the two positions did not disappear at the same time or that it was the position of Padishah Sultan that was abolished first. To be denied the title of Sultan while still retaining the title of Caliph seems rather like telling someone, ‘we do not trust you to be the ruler of our country but we still believe you are the representative of God on earth”. Does not quite make sense to me. For Turks who hold fast to their faith and the system of traditional authority embodied by the Sultan and Caliph this can only be a sad anniversary. Yet, outsiders should consider the occasion as well. The fall of the caliphate has not yielded much benefit for anyone; Turkish or not, Muslim or not.

Whether things would be a great deal better if there was still a Caliph in Turkey no one can say, but it could only be an improvement. Look beyond the Turkish borders for a moment and consider the worldwide problem today with terrorism. There are people of the worst sort, who are both murderers and cowards, carrying out terrible and despicable deeds all in the name of Islam. They butcher helpless innocents and call themselves “holy warriors”. And no one should make any mistake about what is in the hearts of these criminals, after all, the terrorists who carried out the 9-11 attacks in America spent their last night on earth at a strip club. The faithful these are certainly not. Yet, they have fooled many people into thinking that they are and by making such a claim they have blackened the name of Islam, perhaps worse than at any other point in history. I say that because, even in the days of the Crusades, a Christian like King Richard I could look at a Muslim like Sultan Saladin and consider him a brave and worthy adversary. Even in those days of open religious warfare Christians could respect the gallantry of their Muslim foes who would send their doctors to care for the Christian King.

There were terrible things that happened of course, but things were more organized and certainly it would be helpful if there were a Caliph of Islam who could speak with authority in denouncing the atrocities of the terrorists who kill the defenseless and claim to be religious men. However, as beneficial as that could be, there is also the very real possibility that such a Caliph would be ignored. Would Arab and other Muslims react positively to a Turkish Caliph of Islam? The question must be asked, I think, because the Ottoman Empire, led by the Sultan and Caliph, was brought down in part by Arab and other Muslims rising in rebellion against the Turkish Sultan and joining with the Allies (primarily the French and British) in bringing down and eventually breaking up the Ottoman Empire; the last caliphate. When, in the midst of World War I, the Sultan formally pronounced a jihad against the Allied powers, he was, for the most part, ignored by the rest of the Muslim world.

There is also the question as to whether or not our increasingly anti-traditional world would even tolerate such a figure. Turkey, for some reason which completely escapes my comprehension, seems desperate to join the European Union and the E.U. has certainly not shown itself to be favorably inclined toward organized religion. Would they allow Turkey into the E.U. if the Caliph was restored? Personally, I think that would be all the more reason to do it but I’m not Turkish and most seem to want to join the European Union. However, although the amount of wider good a restored Caliph might do is debatable, one certain thing is that the people of Turkey would have a better form of moral guidance and by going that extra step to restoring the monarchy there would be greater consistency and a form of government more in keeping with Turkish traditions and hearkening back to the days when Turkey was a great nation, a major world power and not reduced to the status of appealing for favors from the EU government in Brussels. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, having the Sultan and Caliph back would do none harm and possibly be of great benefit in countries far distant as a voice of legitimate authority.

Today in History

Today in 732 AD the Frankish forces of Charles "the Hammer" Martel defeated an invading Muslim army at the battle of Tours, 12 miles northeast of Poirtiers. It was Charles Martel's grandson who would later go on to become the first Holy Roman Emperor as Charlemagne (Charles the Great). Nowadays no one can agree on how many soldiers were involved on each side, but this was certainly no small accomplishment. The Muslim forces invading France represented the most powerful empire in the western world at that time; the Umayyad Caliphate which, at its height, stretched from India-Pakistan, across Persia, the Middle East, Turkey, North Africa and almost all of Spain. The Muslim commander, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, was killed in the battle, which was in itself quite a blow to the Islamic forces as he was known in his role as a governor for being fair, upright and magnanimous. Charles Martel was born in what is now Belgium, the son of Duke Pepin II, he had won extensive victories against the Germans before moving to consolidate his hold on France. His actions, and his victory at Tour, paved the way for the creation of the Carolingian Empire, the feudalistic society of the Christendom of the Middle Ages and the Holy Roman Empire which was to be the central political body in Europe for many, many centuries to come.

On the Subject of Saudi Arabia

Yesterday was the national holiday of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, marking the unification of the country in 1932. What does this especially matter to me for? Well, these days, tell someone you are a monarchist and they will ask you about Saudi Arabia. After all, monarchies like Britain, Holland, Sweden or Norway are pretty tame but Saudi Arabia is known all over the world as an absolute monarchy and to many the image of the worst sort of state imaginable. This, of course, is not true. There are a number of monarchies in the world that are absolute, not just Saudi Arabia, and while they may not fit the modern standard of a liberal democracy they are surely not the worst out there. Many refer to Saudi Arabia as a dictatorship. While it is true that one person, the King, is ultimately in charge of everything, I would defy anyone to say the state of the people of Saudi Arabia is anywhere even close to being as horrible as that of North Korea. In spite of their laws, brutal by western standards, they have nowhere near the blood on their hands as our “good friends” the communist Chinese. So, let us try to keep a little bit of perspective on this issue.

I will state up front that there is a great deal I do not like about Saudi Arabia, a great deal I find distasteful and a great deal I disapprove of. My reasons involve not only the actions of the country today, their policies and so on, but going right back to the founding of the current kingdom by the Saud dynasty. However, for all of the terrible things that go on there (again, by western standards and even in my opinion) I sometimes feel there is a tendency to ‘pile on’ Saudi Arabia. Say what you will of the country, they do not pretend to be something they are not. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, proudly so, with Islam as the official religion and Islamic law is the law of the land. Even the national motto is the Shahada (“there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet”). If you are not Muslim, you are generally neither wanted nor welcome. For this, many westerners condemn Saudi Arabia for being so intolerant but expecting western countries to tolerate them.

In this case, again, I think people are too hard on Saudi Arabia. They are, after all, living as they always have. They did not first demand tolerance from the West, it was the West that offered it. It is not the fault of Saudi Arabia that western nations have largely abandoned their own religion and, in most countries, emphatically stated in law that they have no religion. Western nations could be just as staunchly Christian (they once were) as Saudi Arabia is Muslim and it is not the fault of Saudi Arabia or any other country that they are not. Saudi Arabia is Muslim, officially and legally and they are not welcoming of non-Muslims and do not pretend to be anything else. Yet in the west many countries have no official religion or are not religiously exclusive and so have little room, as I see it, to complain that others do. What concern is it of anyone else what policies Saudi Arabia enacts in its own territory? If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Why do so many obsess over Saudi Arabia but not other equally less “free” or even worse countries around the world?

Where I think Saudi Arabia is to blame is in trying to play both sides of the fence and some of their actions truly baffle me. One is their funding and promotion of schools which teach a very fundamentalist brand of Islam out of which quite a few terrorists have come. What puzzles me about this, aside from any moral issues, is the fact that these people are generally not supporters of the Saudi monarchy. Osama bin Laden himself is an example. Many of those who condemn Saudi Arabia might be surprised to know that Osama bin Laden fully agrees with them. He is, of course, not upset about the lack of equal rights for women or thieves getting their hands cut off. He is upset that Saudi Arabia allows U.S. military bases on its soil, that the Saudi Royal Family is friendly with western powers and lives a rather different lifestyle quite often while abroad than when they are at home.

This, finally, is the most important reason why, despite my opposition to so much that goes on in Saudi Arabia, I remain at least a nominal supporter of the monarchy there. There is no doubt in my mind that if the House of Saud falls it will be a man like Osama bin Laden who replaces them. The change, I am convinced, would be one to make the change from Shah to Ayatollah in Iran seem miniscule in comparison. That is because the enemies of the Saudi monarchy, on the scene, do not oppose it for the same reason that the liberal-minded west does but rather because they do not view them as strict enough. It is also true that the Saudi monarchy has recently, slowly, been moving more toward the moderate direction. The King recently placed certain restrictions on religious leaders and, for the first time, appointed a woman to a government post. If this is the right policy only time will tell but despite outward appearances Saudi Arabia is far from secure. Already most of the oil industry is run by imported foreign workers while the native population to a considerable degree lives off the largesse of the Saudi monarchy. Aside from the radical religious opposition they are going to be in a very tight spot if the “green” movement succeeds in eliminating “our” dependence on oil. If that day ever comes the high standard of living in Saudi Arabia today will be gone and the people will be left with nothing but a giant sandbox and a population of angry, unemployed and religiously motivated young people. Mind your step Saudi Arabia.

Mad Rant: Draw Mohammad Day

Yesterday was “Draw Mohammad Day” and, fortunately in my view, it fell flat. Now, for the benefit of my adoring fans who think I am a Muslim, let me state a few facts first. I know as well as anyone what this was all about and I do find it cowardly, hypocritical and abhorrent that in western society it is perfectly acceptable to mock and ridicule other religions, particularly the Christian religion of the majority, while staying away from Islam and the Prophet Mohammad out of fear of terrorist retaliation. To my mind all this really does is send the message to other religions that, if you want to avoid disrespect, killing innocent people is the answer; it will get you want you want. However, while I think there should be no double-standards I do NOT think that means it should be acceptable to ridicule the Prophet Mohammad but rather that it should be considered unacceptable to ridicule Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary or the Buddha for that matter.

Most of these ‘artistic standoffs’ with Islam have come, let us be honest, not from Christians but from areas and peoples of the formerly Christian world who have embraced secularism and have no religion at all. Unlike these people I do NOT consider it an integral part of my culture to profane that which is sacred -to anyone. What does anyone gain from insulting Islam? Sure, it may be thrilling to annoy the Islamic terrorists but what about the Muslims who are just as aghast at these criminals, just as threatened by them and just as repelled by their methods as people in the west are? Is a symbolic tweaking of the terrorists worth offending and aggravating the majority of Muslims who do not share their murderous views? Profaning the sacred should not be part of “western culture” whether it is an insulting drawing of Mohammad or a theatre piece which portrays the Virgin Mary as a lesbian. Respect can only exist if it is reciprocal.

Now, this does not mean that I agree with bending over backwards to please everyone. For instance, I find it to be in appallingly poor taste to build a mosque next door to where the World Trade Center once stood. I do not think we should allow Saudi Arabia to build Muslim schools in western countries, claiming a right for themselves they deny to others. I am reminded of the time the Saudi King asked Benito Mussolini for permission to build a mosque in Rome. The Duce replied that he would gladly give permission if the Saudis would permit the Italians to build a Catholic Church in Mecca. Obviously the matter was dropped. Today of course there are many mosques in Rome but still absolutely no Christian churches anywhere in Saudi Arabia. I do not favor discrimination, I do favor fairness and consistency and, I would add, when I have seen Christian symbols attacked and profaned it has been done by western secularists and atheists -not by Muslims or members of some other religion. Rather than needlessly antagonizing Muslims westerners should try to be respectful of religious faith -perhaps starting with their own. No one *needs* to mock Mohammad anymore than anyone *needs* to mock the Pope (or their monarch for that matter) and these juvenile jibes at religion do not make me feel satisfied in any way they just make me mad. Terrorists should be fought openly, honestly and with stunning violence on the battlefield, not given more ammunition by further examples of godlessness and religious disrespect. I don’t see where it gets us anywhere. And no, reader who knows who you are, I am not a Muslim. I am … the Mad Monarchist.

A Royal Marriage Gone Bad

It was quite an event when HH Prince Tengku Temenggong Tengku Mohammad Fakhry, of the northern Malaysian state of Kelantan, married well known Indonesian socialite and teenage model Manohara Odelia Pinot in October of 2008. However, according to the 17-year-old bride her married life was a nightmare. While on a visit to Singapore and with some help from the U.S. embassy she fled her husband and went home to Indonesia in May of last year and related a tale of royal torture. She said she had been locked up like a prisoner, cut with razors, drugged if she complained and repeatedly raped. Prince Fakhry immediately sued his young bride for libel and was recently awarded $1.8 million for defamation in spite of the fact that Indonesian doctors who examined the soon-to-be ex-princess said there were clear signs of physical abuse. However, the bride's family did not appear in court nor did they hire an attorney to defend them. They now say the ruling is outrageous and that they will not pay. Divorce proceedings are currently underway in the Islamic court in Kelantan. The north Malaysian state, which borders Thailand, is very conservative and has been ruled for some time by a very hard-line Islamic party. The Republic of Indonesia, on the hand, while the most populous Muslim nation in the world, is considerably more secular and "progressive". Similar charges to the ones made by the Princess have also been leveled at the neighboring Sultan of Brunei, ruler of one of the most absolute and strictly Muslim monarchies in the world.

Royal Profile: H.H. the Fourth Aga Khan

His Highness* Shah Karim al-Hussayni the Fourth Aga Khan was born Prince Karim Aga Khan on December 13, 1936 to HH Prince Aly Khan and his first wife Princess Tajuddawlah Aly Khan in Switzerland. Although he was premature he was healthy and developed normally. His parents divorced in 1949 after which his father married his most famous wife the American actress Rita Hayworth. He spent much of his childhood in Kenya, educated by private tutors employed by his grandfather. He later went to school in Switzerland and graduated from Harvard with a BA in Islamic history. He also acquired a love for winter sports and participated in two Olympic games on the teams of Turkey and Iran as a skier.

He was 20-years-old when his grandfather died and he succeeded him as the fourth Aga Khan, 49th hereditary Imam of the Ismaili Muslims of the Shia branch of the religion. His was a somewhat controversial succession as his father and an uncle were in line ahead of him. However, the Third Aga Khan named his grandson as his chosen successor in his will because of how rapidly the world had changed during his lifetime and he felt that a young, modern man like Prince Karim would be better equipped to carry out his social and religious duties than those of the previous generation. Nonetheless, the new Aga Khan stated he would continue in the footsteps of his grandfather to work to improve the lives of Ismaili Muslims.

As the Ismailis are a minority in the nations through which they are scattered around the world it is no surprise that the Aga Khan has been a major voice advocating racial tolerance and harmony as well as his humanitarian efforts to improve the lives of his people and others, showing particular concern in the areas emerging from colonial rule to independence. He has also, by both nature and necessity, been a prominent voice in the Islamic world calling for religious tolerance and peaceful dialogue between religions.

In his private life the Aga Khan has not had an easy time of things. He married his first wife in 1969 by whom he had three children before divorcing in 1995. In 1998 he married again, had another son, but announced another divorce in 2007. That year did bring some celebration though as His Highness celebrated his Golden Jubilee as Aga Khan with representatives of the Ismaili community coming to pay homage to their hereditary Imam and the Aga Khan himself then embarking on a world tour of Ismaili communities to thank them for all of their loyalty and support over the years.

Aside from his considerable humanitarian work the Aga Khan has been of great service in his efforts to preserve Islamic architecture which is often threatened by gross, modernist monstrosities, as well as Islamic art and has been an important defender of the status of women in Islamic societies. He has spoken of the way religion touches all aspects of life for Muslims whereas in many “Christian” countries religion is kept strictly separate from the way most people live their lives. He noted, of course, that this is not universal but is the prevailing norm. In that regard even Christians could be well served by listening to the Aga Khan and perhaps reflecting on the degree to which the Christian world has abandoned or forgotten their faith.

(*the Aga Khan was granted the style of 'His Highness' by Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and 'His Royal Highness' by the late Shah of Iran)

Mad Rant: "Radical" Islam

In light of the recent events at Ft Hood, I thought the time as good as any other to discuss "radical" Islam. First of all, my own experiences prompt me to dismiss any effort by some to judge by the group when it comes to Muslims. I was once on a tour with a group of Muslim families who were obviously western converts and they were the most ill-mannered, ill-behaved, flat out rude bunch of people I've ever had to endure. Yet, while I was at university I had several classes with an African Muslim from Benin and he was the most polite, friendly, hard working student I ever met while I was there. He earned my sincere respect and was often the only other person besides myself to speak up in defense of traditional morals and values. So, to judge by the group is simply absurd.

Those Muslims who have carried out terrorist attacks are certainly enemies of civilization, both in terms of their goals and in terms of how they pursue them, launching cowardly surprise attacks on innocent people. These are the same people who are not only the enemies of my people and my own religion but also my politics; they are the same stripe as those who destroyed the monarchies of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya in terms of their political enemies if nothing else and wish to do the same to virtually all others even so staunchly Islamic a monarchy as Saudi Arabia. It would be totally wrong though to paint all Muslims with the same brush. In fact, there are ways in which I think the Christian world could take some lessons from the devout Muslims who are not terrorist fanatics. I remember an interview with His Highness the Aga Khan in which he spoke of Muslims being different from "most" Christians in that Muslims cannot seperate their religion from how they live their lives as it touches every aspect of their lives. That should be the same attitude for Christians as well and yet so many regard their faith as little more than a flag, a form of identification; something they 'are' but which has no bearing on how they live their lives.

I can also, to some extent, understand Muslim outrage at "western culture" as much of it today outrages me as well. One item I will never forget is hearing on the news, in the aftermath of the U.S. and coalition victory of the previous regime in Iraq, that for the first time in Iraqi history the "Playboy" channel was available on Iraqi TV. I can fully understand a devout Iraqi Muslim being quite outraged at the introduction of that smut which so many in the west hold up as an example of "freedom of speech". Like most religious people Muslims share many if not most of the same core traditional values as Christians. However, that understanding does not equal sympathy with how every individual chooses to deal with confronting such threats. I am also certainly not in the same camp as the multi-culturalists. I am all for learning about other cultures, appreciating them and so on, in fact I pride myself in being able to find something admirable in every people around the world. However, what is pushed for by those shouting for multiculturalism today is actually the destruction of these cultures; mixing them all together until all lose their value and all fall prey to the dull, mechanical, Bolshevik mono-culture of the liberal, elite "one world" types.

That is another reason why my zeal to defeat the current crop of terrorists does not cause me to paint all Muslims with the same brush. Most Muslims are not terrorists and I do not regard most Muslims as a threat to my religion. The greater threat is the enemy of all religions; the Bolshevik, secularist, atheist, agnostic liberal elites who look upon all relgions as hinderances to their one-world, socialist utopia. I have never seen Muslims protesting Christian symbols in my country but I see the secularists attacking them constantly. I remember a case of a Muslim in Italy protesting the presence of crucifixes on the walls of Italian classrooms but I think it telling that the person in question was a Scottish convert to Islam who had moved to Italy. For that, I have no sympathy at all -another reason why I am no multi-culturalist. If a Muslim is offended by Catholic icons he shouldn't move to the very country where the Pope lives! In the same way, someone who is offended by Buddha statues should probably not move to Thailand. If one is to move to a foreign country one must be prepared to accept the traditions of the majority and not expect them to change to please the foreign minority, though I realize that has been all the rage lately in many places.

I am a pan-monarchist and I do not want to see Muslim extremists marching in London heaping insult on the British Queen and culture. I would be very pleased to see Muslims restoring their own countries to greatness with the restoration of the great Muslim monarchies of the past. I also think the current problems reveal what a disaster it was for the west and the world as a whole when the monarchies of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and so on were destroyed. I would like to see more forceful work done toward their restoration though I am at least pleased that in Iraq and Afghanistan monarchist parties have been able to compete in the political process for the first time since their monarchies were destroyed. The world would be a better place in every way and a more peaceful place if these monarchies were restored to their former glory. I have my particular beliefs and opinions but I am also in favor of religion in general, in opposition to the liberal secularists and I am a pan-monarchist in favor of monarchy in general in opposition to leftist republican rule and, of course, I am ..... The Mad Monarchist.

Mad Rant: Obama and Islam

Obama has made his much hyped speech to Islam in Cairo, Egypt and he has mauled the truth as only someone of his leftist talent can. Whereas during the campaign he played down or silenced his Muslim background, now he is lifting it up as a benefit (during the course of his political career his father has gone from being an "atheist" to an "agnostic" to a "Muslim"). He also sang the praises of the religion of Mohammed, crediting Islam with giving the world or furthering the magnetic compass, algebra, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Not true. The ancient "Middle Kingdom" of China invented the magnetic compass, algebra has its roots in the ancient empire of Babylon (who were not Muslims at the time -Islam had not been invented yet), the Renaissance was not a result of Islam it was the rediscovery of classic civilization (Greek, Roman) by Europe. As for the "Enlightenment", I don't see how Islam furthered that nor would I consider it to be a credit to Islam if it did. The "Enlightenment" did not bring new light to Europe but rather a new darkness by stamping out the divine in human understanding.

That is not to say that the Islamic world is without accomplishments -by no means. However, a distinction that must be made is that all of the Islamic contributions to the betterment of the world came from the Muslim monarchies -not the fanatical, theocratic republics that are all too in vogue today. Turkey was never greater in learning or culture than when it had a Sultan, Iran was never greater in learning, culture and progress than when it had a Shah, Afghanistan was a much greater country when it had a king than when it had the Taliban. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Taliban regime in Aghanistan, the secularist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the terrorist state in Syria are all totally opposed to any sort of legitimate, benevolent progress. These were not and are not centers of great learning or flowering culture but are places of fear, repression and overall small-mindedness.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could easily fall into this category as well but it is clear that as bad as things may be they could be alot worse. We should not forget that Usama bin Laden, a native of Saudi Arabia, is an avowed enemy of the Saudi monarchy. I have no doubt that if the House of Saud ever falls it will not be replaced by a more benevolent monarchy but rather by a Wahabi Islamic republic. Why on earth the government seems to be encouraging their people in this direction is beyond me but for all of the failings of Saudi Arabia its fall would be a disaster in the same vein as the fall of the Iranian monarchy (which is not to say that the Pahlavi and Saudi monarchies are anything alike). The significance of the fall of the Shah of Iran cannot be overstated. A pro-western, modern-minded monarchy was replaced by a horrific revolutionary regime; the first time that the worst, fanatical elements of Islam were able to take over a state. Until that mistake is recognized I cannot hold out much hope that the current crisis can ever be effectively dealt with at its roots. Obama may wow the crowds but he will never be able to bring about peace between Islamic fanatics and leftist, anti-religion liberals in the west. Only a true return to sincere religion, cultural understanding and traditional authority can accomplish that.

Trying to reason with people who are, by definition, unreasonable is surely a mark of insanity and the continuing denial of the facts of history and republican revolutionaries ongoing weakness for buying in to their own propaganda are all further reasons why I remain The Mad Monarchist.