Mad Rant: A British Terrorist

As I am sure all know there was recently another terrorist attack in London. The terrorist was killed by the police but not before taking the lives of a number of innocents. The authorities took their time to release the identity of the villain but, as was no surprise to most, his name was Khalid Masood, an Islamic radical not unknown to the authorities, from Kent. Yes, from Kent, so that the mindless drones on television can tell us this was a "British" terrorist and not in immigrant or refugee. He has and will be endlessly referred to as a "British citizen" and there is from start to finish absolutely nothing about this whole dirty business that I do not find positively infuriating!

In the first place is the man himself and what he is about. He is a vicious, cowardly, hypocritical dog who deserved far worse than he received. The Islamic State was quick to claim him as one of their own, which is well enough as we can see what sort of spineless pigs they consider "holy warriors". He had not the courage of conviction, otherwise he would not have lived his life submitting to a Christian monarch and, inevitably to some degree or other, accepted subsidy from Her Majesty. He was a coward living a lie who ended his life, not in an honorable act of combat but in a cowardly attack on helpless civilians.

Then there is the media description of him, Khalid Masood, the "British" citizen. Personally, the very phrase 'British citizen' rather than 'British subject' still unsettles me but to call him "British" is to point again to the dishonesty of this pig. His real name, according to The Telegraph, was Adrian Elms and he was a convert to Islam. Neighbors said he grew his beard out and wore Islamic white robes at times. Now, this can be a little tricky because the western media is in the habit of referring to people as being of a certain nationality simply because of where they were born or what sort of paperwork they have on file rather than according to the blood in their veins. And, this man was known by several different aliases during his recurring encounters with the police. This is a purely European problem. If HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, whose ancestry can be traced back to the Saxon Kings of England, were to have been born in Shanghai, it would not make him Chinese and every single one of the billion people in China would find the very notion absurd. The average peasant in the interior of China has rather more common sense than European or North American television personalities.

However, given the information at hand at the moment, let us assume this man began his life as English as fish and chips. It certainly does not sound like he considered himself British. Rather, it sounds like someone forsaking his forebears to adopt the religion and culture of another people. It sounds, again, like someone living a lie. Again, had he any shred of decency, if he felt so strongly about being a Muslim, he should have renounced his British "citizenship" and moved to an Islamic country. But, of course, everything is so upside down today and our duly elected leaders so infantile and deluded that it would be considered cruel and unusual to even suggest such a thing.

Indeed, as soon as the attack was over, the British Prime Minister was quick to take to the television to say that this pig had made his attack in London, "where people of all nationalities, religions and cultures come together to celebrate the values of liberty, democracy and freedom of speech." Hearing that, one might wonder just who it was who won the war against the French Revolutionaries. She also said that the attack was an attack on the values of the Westminster Parliament, which she described as, "democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law". Now, I have no doubt that Theresa May is to be preferred to Comrade Corbyn but what a load of utterly contemptible nonsense! Democracy? Is the United Kingdom a democracy? Honestly, I am asking because they cannot seem to make up their mind on this point. Has Britain left the European Union yet? Freedom? Seems to be plenty of freedom for some people but not so much for others, like those who would have said, as I would have, that this murderous pig had no business being in Britain long before today. Human rights? As defined by who? Every tyranny on earth claims to love them. The rule of law? Please. The rule of law has totally evaporated in liberal societies because everything is now partisan, everything is political and the rule of law only applies to your political enemies. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also believes in the rule of law, the rule of Islamic law and they at least make no bones about it.

All of this was like salt on an open wound and then, later, to hear the Prime Minister again take the line spouted by Cameron, Blair, Obama and Bush that this attack, just like all the others in a long line before it, has nothing to do with Islam at all. Then there was the parade of Labour MPs, many Muslims themselves, doing everything they can to shield the "values" of the perpetrator of this crime. We may be living in the most deluded generation in the whole of human history, with leaders coming out in the immediate aftermath of such an attack praising the very poison that has allowed this pig to be about his murderous work. It is disgusting, it is sickening and it is infuriating and it makes me a very, VERY ... Mad Monarchist.

The Example of Jordan

It was on this day in 1999 that Abdullah II succeeded to the throne of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon the death of his father King Hussein. The King of Jordan has been in the news a great deal lately with the horrific burning alive of a Jordanian fighter pilot by ISIS terrorists. King Abdullah, a trained combat pilot himself, put on his battle gear and called for swift retaliation against the barbaric criminals, inspiring people all over the world, from the United States to Japan, whose leaders could not or would not do the same in showing such a level of determination against the vicious enemy. With all of this in mind, it should be obvious to the viewing public that Jordan represents something of a ‘framework’ to solving many of the problems in the modern Middle East. Saying that it “should” be obvious, however, does not mean that it will be since no one seems willing to make the monarchist argument on the world stage. At a time when so many are praising the courage and leadership of King Abdullah II, this is the perfect time to point out that the Jordanian model should stand as an example to others of a monarchist solution.

The Kingdom of Jordan stands out in the Middle East as a country which, while having its share of problems and shortcomings as any country does, has a great record of strength and stability compared to those around it. Jordan is a small country, a little larger than the state of Indiana, a population of around six million with very little water and practically no natural resources to speak of. Its chief products has traditionally been barley, fruit and goats. It has nothing like the vast oil reserves of Iraq or even Saudi Arabia and there have been tensions between the native people and the very large number of Palestinians who make up a large part of the population. Yet, while neighbors like Syria and Iraq have had many more advantages, they have known numerous civil wars and spent many decades living under the heel of brutal socialist dictators while Jordan has carried on in internal peace and stability with a strong constitutional monarchy.

The King, like most in the region, has a great deal of power and is expected to actually rule his country and yet it bears almost no resemblance at all to its neighbor Saudi Arabia which is much more restrictive and where power is much more centralized. Likewise, while it is a Muslim country and the Hashemite Royal Family claims descent from the prophet Mohammed, it is not at all as harshly strict as Saudi Arabia is. Starting in the 1950’s women in Jordan gained much more freedom and it has a representative government with a bicameral legislature with the lower body being democratically elected and the upper body appointed by the King. If this sounds somewhat familiar, it should. After British and Allied forces drove out the Ottoman Turks in World War I the country of Transjordan (as it was originally called) was established with the Hashemite prince Abdullah ibn Hussein as Emir. From 1920 Transjordan was a British mandate that made steady progress toward independence so that by the 1940’s only a few British advisors remained. Total independence was recognized in 1946 but if any should doubt that the country was not practically independent before that, it is worth remembering that Jordan was neutral in World War II which, of course, it would not have been if it had been simply a British dependency.

There were many problems, as with every other country in the region, concerning the independence of the State of Israel, Palestinian refugees and lingering ties with Great Britain, particularly as Arab nationalism became trendy in the 1950’s. However, Jordan and Iraq, which was also a Hashemite monarchy at the time, joined together in the Arab Federation or Arab Federal State in 1958 to counter the Egyptian-Syrian union (which was really Egyptian domination of Syria) known as the United Arab Republic. Neither lasted very long and the Iraqi monarchy sadly fell to a republican coup that ushered in an era of instability broken only by the stability of a brutal dictatorship. So, while Syria and Iraq have mostly been known for their wars and torture and tyranny, Jordan has gained a much better reputation around the world. Jordan is known as the country that made peace with Israel (though naturally tensions remain), the country with widely admired and respected leaders, male and female like King Hussein, Queen Alia, Queen Noor or King Abdullah II and Queen Rania today.

Everyone, in light of recent events, who is praising King Abdullah II for his bold stand against ISIS, should ask themselves why it is that Jordan is so often the home for refugees from places like Palestine, Iraq and Syria. They should ask why Syria and Iraq cannot have a ‘King Abdullah’ of their own, because the answer is that they easily could have! Iraq, in fact, did have and Syria had previously -even what is now Saudi Arabia had a Hashemite monarchy in the aftermath of the First World War. The Hashemites had led the Arab revolt against the Turks and were set to rule the newly independent countries that emerged from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Sharif Hussein was to rule Arabia as King of the Hejaz but he was later overthrown by the Wahhabi-backed House of Saud who established Saudi Arabia as it is today. One son of his, Faisal I, became King of Syria with Prince Zeid (another son) as regent of Iraq and a third son, Abdullah, was made King of Transjordan. However, only the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has endured. The Hejaz fell to the Saudis, the Kingdom of Syria was overthrown by the French Republic and its monarch, King Faisal, instead became King of Iraq. The monarchy there endured somewhat longer but, as mentioned, was lost in a coup in 1958 when King Faisal II and the Royal Family were brutally massacred. None have benefited from such changes, I think any honest observer would agree.

There are, of course, unique distinctions about the Middle East that make it a particularly difficult region to thrive in these days. However, as people today applaud King Abdullah II and call for greater unity and some sort of Arab coalition to wipe out the terrorist element, we should call attention to the fact that such a thing did exist, albeit very briefly, in the past and that it could, conceivably, come about again if only people and governments would follow the example of the formula that has proven the most successful. If things continue as they are, no one will suffer more than the Arabs. Already rebels backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran have brought down the government of Yemen, the elected government in Iraq is heavily influenced by Iran and the dictator of Syria and the powerful Hezbollah faction in Lebanon are practically Iranian owned. Someone is being encircled here and it isn’t Europe or the United States. This is not ’someone else’s fight’ but an Arab fight that the Arabs must take in hand themselves, as the King of Jordan has been doing. Other powers can give assistance but if we want real lasting peace and stability in the region some things have to change or, to be more precise, change back.

Beheading ISIS

The terrorist organization ISIS is now claiming to have beheaded the second of their Japanese hostages, Kenji Goto (a Christian and father of three) who they had been offering to exchange for a female suicide bomber being held by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. While most of the focus has been on the major republics involved in this conflict or those which are able to do something about it, monarchies like the United Kingdom and Japan have lost people to these barbaric criminals. Jordan has also been touched by it and other Arab monarchies have also participated in the campaign against ISIS, though not to the extent that most in the west would like to see. What, if anything, can the monarchies of the world do about this situation? Should they do anything at all?

The key question really is; what can they do? Unfortunately, things like the current social-welfare state that is so popular around the world has meant that there is not a single monarchy on earth at this point that is capable of any sort of extensive, independent, military operation. Even the most militarily powerful monarchy in the world (and the only one with nuclear weapons), the United Kingdom, has admitted that the British military has been reduced to the point that they can only take action in conjunction with another power, and the United States is "the only game in town" in that regard. It would be extremely difficult for the British to undertake any sort of rescue operation aimed at freeing ISIS hostages because British military resources are so scarce. As for Japan, such an operation is currently out of the question as it would be illegal because of the pacifist constitution the country has had since the end of World War II (and most American leaders would now like to see it amended and for Japan to strengthen its armed forces). And, in any event, such an operation would be likely to fail in any event as any hostages would likely be killed at the last minute. Even the United States, with all of its military resources and expertise, has failed at such missions.

So, is there nothing that can be done? To rescue current or future hostages, I would sadly have to say so. These people, and God bless them, have willingly gone to areas where they know that terrorists operate freely and where they are beyond the protection of their own governments. Some have gone for humanitarian reasons, some simply for business, but whatever the reason, my advice would be that it just isn't worth it -avoid the area entirely. However, as far as the overall situation with ISIS, no monarchy may be able to do much, but they are able to do something. Britain could send weapons to Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and Japan could send them some Toyota trucks that could be easily modified for military use. Beyond that, however, the situation becomes very, very difficult to navigate. For instance, in Syria, there are, broadly speaking, three factions: the dictator Assad, ISIS and the anti-Assad rebels such as the Free Syrian Army. Assad is on closest terms with powers like Iran and Russia, neither of which are friendly toward Britain. Russia is likewise hostile toward Japan and while Iran may not be, they are on very friendly terms with China and North Korea which are. So anything that helped Assad would not serve the national interests of Britain or Japan. The problem is, the anti-Assad rebels are often no better, in fact Kenji Goto first went to the area to rescue Haruna Yukawa who had been kidnapped by the Free Syrian Army. Both have since been be-headed by ISIS after returning to Syria. It is not uncommon for Syrian rebels to sell hostages to ISIS.

The local monarchies are in a similarly difficult position, though to some extent one of their own making. For years they promoted or at least allowed the spread of the sort of radical Islam that is now posing a threat to their regimes. They want to stop insurrection wherever it breaks out but it is also not good for their domestic popularity to align with non-Muslim states for any reason. This is something many, many people fail to understand when they look at the monarchies of the Middle East and are so quick to condemn them; they have their own dissidents to worry about and those dissidents are not opposed to them for upholding shariah law but rather for being insufficiently devoted to it. Even in Jordan, which is fairly moderate for the neighborhood, the elements that oppose the monarchy are more likely to have a problem with the King being friendly with the west or the Queen for hanging out with Oprah and Hillary Clinton than for the regime being too Islamic or authoritarian. It is because of this situation that I have said the best course of action would be to view the whole region as a minefield -mark it and stay out. Once things become more settled so that there is some power or faction it would not be detrimental to support, other decisions can be made.

If, however, that is not satisfactory, I would fall back on imperialism, no matter how distasteful modern popular opinion holds it. Be open and honest about it, but go in, choose someone to support, making it clear that he will be dropped in an instant if he doesn't stay friendly, and then give him all that is necessary to clean house on the terrorists. It would involve military intervention and one that would have to be sustained for some time. Personally, I'd like for the British to take a leading role in such an enterprise and insist that restored Hashemite monarchies be part of the end-game. But, Britain doesn't have the military muscle for that, nor would most of the British public be in favor of such a policy these days. Which, again, is why my most realistic advice would be to just stay far, far away from this troubled neighborhood, at least for the time being. There can be punitive strikes or covert operations as needed but for anything more, I couldn't see asking anyone's armed forces to do more until there is a viable goal that would be beneficial.

Additional Note: I should also add that when it comes to any confrontation with this enemy, I am firmly of the opinion that the "gloves should come off". They should be given no quarter and shown no pity. They are not common criminals and they are not legitimate soldiers or prisoners of war when captured. They are barbarians who should be wiped out. There is a reason why civilized countries, even before the Geneva conventions, adhered to certain standards of warfare; because if one side didn't, the other side wouldn't either. Playing by the rules with these types of animals does not uphold any moral superiority, it simply encourages people to be as ruthless as possible knowing that we won't respond in kind. They kill civilians, they are not acting under orders, they do not wear uniforms -they should not be treated with any degree of mercy at all. -MM

We Are Revenged!

I’m sure everyone has heard the news by now. The arch-terrorist and most wanted criminal on earth, Osama bin Laden, is finally and certainly dead. On orders from President Obama U.S. Navy SEALS (I would like to think my cousin among them but who knows) stormed his compound in Pakistan and put a bullet in his head about a week ago. His remains were brought back to the U.S. where DNA testing confirmed beyond doubt that it was Osama himself. As everyone probably knows, I am not a fan of much of U.S. foreign policy nor am I a fan of the current administration, however, this was absolutely good news. The impact of it will be debated for some time but the psychological satisfaction is immense. This man had the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands, innocents from all over the world, from the United States of America to the United Kingdom to the Kingdom of Spain, to the Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia and in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as many other places around the world. The current situation around the world is very complex (I think by design) but at the end of the day a very, very bad man has been removed from mankind and sent to face divine judgment. As he descends to the depths of Hell I do hope he has to pass through a gauntlet of all the souls he butchered on 9-11, in London, in Madrid and all the other places around the world. Congratulations to all the heroes of the armed forces who played a part in his downfall and good riddance to this villain who now, thankfully, no longer curses this earth with his foul presence.

PM: State Multiculturalism Has Failed

Regular blog reader and "Brain Trust" fellow English Jacobite pointed me toward this story from the BBC that "Call Me Dave" Cameron has taken a page from the German lady chancellor to say that "state multiculturalism" in the United Kingdom is not working. Well, well done Dave! There's no slipping anything past you is there? It only took a few dozen home-grown terrorists and Mohammed becoming the most popular British baby name to prove the point that many others have been saying for a long time but "Call me Dave" has caught on. Oh what a worthy fellow to be councillor to the Sovereign. However, seriously, I am glad that the Prime Minister (any prime minister) has at least said something about the elephant in the room and he has, not surprisingly, already been called a right-wing extremist for daring to suggest that immigrant groups that are on the take from the government should actually not be advocating the downfall of the British government and British society. Oh, indeed, what a Nazi he is!

Now, it might surprise some people to know that I have very negative feelings about what we call today "multiculturalism". I say that only because I have so often been accused of being so many different things. I've been called everything from an apologist for Islam, a rabid Catholic, a Protestant fundamentalist, a Zionist and an anti-Semite. However, I am not a fan of "multiculturalism" and that is specifically because I AM a fan of diversity. I have great admiration for many, many peoples and cultures all around the world and I even have a pretty multi-cultural family. It has been my experience that if I study the history of any nation around the world I can find something to respect and admire about them. I want all peoples and all cultures to be preserved, in fact I have spoken often about how I wish as many people that cared about saving the damn whales would care about saving the human beings and their cultures that are becoming extinct; be it the Manchus, the Tibetans or the American Indians.

The problem is that none of the "minority" cultures in places like Great Britain are in any danger of being lost. If you are a Pakistani the place to preserve your culture is in Pakistan -not England. England is the place to preserve English culture and I do not see that a racist or intolerant position to hold. Where I do think that Cameron and others go wrong is to think that the answer to these problems lies totally with assimilation. While it is certainly fair to say that if you are going to come and live in country "X" then you must adapt to the ways and customs of country "X" and not expect to go on as though you still live in country "Y". However, the English people or the Scottish people etc are very unique groups and a Nigerian can come to Scotland, speak with the local accent, choke down haggis and wear a kilt and he still will not be Scottish. Ethnicity, race and so on is not a choice; which is something I thought the liberal left used to understand -that is why punishing someone because of something they did not choose and cannot change is wrong. And frankly, to allow people into your country and then expect them to purge themselves of their native culture seems rather wrong.

I realize that I may sound as if I am talking in circles here but it is a rather circular problem. This is why I think "multiculturalism" as it is defined today is a bad thing and why it hurts rather than encourages diversity, because you are either forcing one people to give up their culture in favor of another or you are watering down your own culture in order to be more palatable and less offensive to the culture of the immigrant. No matter which way it is done, one or both of the cultures involved is being harmed. Am I saying then that all immigration is a bad thing? No, but you might ask the American Indians how it worked out for them. What I will say is that I do not understand why anyone has a "right" to move to a foreign country and expect to be treated in a certain way. Why does everyone from every corner of the former British Empire feel that they have a "right" to move to Britain? Given how they complain about how terrible the British were in ruling them I've never been able to understand why so many would want to, but, it seems to be a fact. My only question then is that if all of these people from all around the world have a "right" to come and live in England or Scotland (but let's be honest it's England) then where exactly in the world is the country that the English have a "right" to? I would have thought it was England but then I seem to woefully uninformed on this subject...

Remember

Nine years ago today terrorists organized by Islamic radical Osama bin Laden attacked the United States by hijacking 4 jet liners to launch suicide attacks against key U.S. targets. Two planes hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, one hit the Pentagon outside Washington DC and another, destined for either the White House or Capital Building, was retaken by passengers from the terrorists and crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside. Some 3,000 people were killed in the attacks making them the bloodiest act of terrorism in American history. Sympathy poured in from the rest of the world but, as a monarchist, one of the moments which most stuck in my mind was the image of Prince Charles, Prince Philip and the American ambassador to the Court of St James viewing the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace with the guards band playing the "Star Spangled Banner" in honor of the atrocity visited on the United States.

Bill O'Reilly's Elastic Definition of Terrorism

Tonight on "The O'Reilly Factor" Bill O'Reilly went pretty far overboard in his definition of "terrorism". Most of the time, I don't bother with this stuff too much because a) O'Reilly often says things simply to irritate the "right" in order to back up his claim of being "independent" and b) the pro-America hurrah! hurrah! attitude much of this stems from doesn't bother me that much. What happened cannot be changed and every country needs some kind of founding myth to rally around when the population has virtually nothing in common. However, sometimes things can be taken too far. Case in point, O'Reilly comparing the controversy over lawyers who defend Muslim terrorists to John Adams defending some of the British soldiers who participated in the so-called "Boston Massacre" which, O'Reilly said was 'surely an act of terrorism'.

Hold the phone Bill! First of all, it was no "massacre". Only 11 people were shot, only 5 of whom died and the shooting came at the height of a very ugly confrontation between a mob of some 300 to 400 Bostonians and a mere 7 or 8 British soldiers who were being pelted with snowballs, rocks, sticks and insults as well as being dared to shoot by people in the mob. All of these were regular soldiers in the British army, in uniform, standing on guard duty as they had been for some time. By no stretch of the imagination could these men be called terrorists or the shooting an act of terrorism. In fact, the subsequent trial of several of those involved found mostly in favor of the British.

Lest the British feel too picked on here, O'Reilly, later in the same broadcast, also compared the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to an act of terrorism. A much more horrible affair no doubt about it, but again, hardly an act of terrorism. The Japanese were regular military men, flying in marked planes and attacking military targets. In fact, when the flight commander returned to Japan, HIM Emperor Hirohito, who rarely spoke at such meetings, questioned him directly to ensure that no civilian areas had been hit in the attack. In the course of the war other very horrible things were done but in all the hyper-sensitivity of the "War on Terror" we do need to keep in mind that not every tragedy, not every surprise attack and not even every war crime is an act of "terrorism".

Mad Rant: Fighting in Afghanistan

Tonight U.S. President Barack Obama announced his long-awaited decision on the reinforcements and strategy for the war in Afghanistan. Even after such a long wait nothing was said that has not been known for months nor was it anything other than what was expected; a sending of some additional forces which is too little for the conservatives and too much for the liberals. In an example of the result of trying to please everyone Obama's decision has been criticized by both Michael Moore and Sean Hannity. I do not totally approve of the plan, though I hold out at least the possibility that it could work out -and hope it does, but simply having Obama as president has, on the war front anyway, forced me into the rare position of being more in line with the far-left than the far-right. Allow me to explain.

I don't think Obama wants to fight anyone and I think he would consider the war the very worst of the things he inherited from Bush because of that; even moreso than the economic crisis which at least has given him the opportunity to push his socialist agenda forward. But I don't think he wants to fight anyone and there is nothing worse than having troops on the battlefield with a CinC that does not want to fight. I do not hold that against him, despite his protests about Afghanistan being the "just" war; I think that was campaign rhetoric to appear tough. The public voted him in, he does not want to fight, and the responsibility for that falls on the voting public rather than Obama. So, if we have a president who does not want to fight, who is not willing to do whatever it takes to win I think the only humane thing to do is pull-out at once rather than throw more lives away on a war we will eventually abandon anyway.

These situations remind me of one of the things I admire about the government of Mexico. It is written into their constitution that the Mexican army cannot be deployed beyond the borders of the country without a formal declaration of war from the Congress. I think the U.S. should adopt that policy as well. In nearly every conflict America has become involved in since the last time we declared war on anyone (WW2) the President has sent forces in only to have a bickering Congress haggle over war funding, military policy and strategy or administrations change and in the end victory is not vigorously pursued and we end up drawing out the conflict and the casualties only to withdraw in the end or at best (in the case of Korea) be left with a long-standing stalemate. I think if we adopted Mexico's policy we would at least be able to simplify matters. If the situation warrants war then vote on it and then go in with full force to win at any cost. To fight a war without the will to win is criminal. As the communist Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap famously said, "In war, you have to win. Absolutely -have to win!"

I was even further surprised to find myself in agreement with a very leftist, liberal Democrat when it comes to the politics of Afghanistan. That being said, the Democrat was Dennis Kucinich; a socialist, revolutionary devil if ever there was one but at least an honest one who stands by his convictions. On "The O'Reilly Factor" Congressman Kucinich said that rather than prop up the corrupt central government in Kabul the NATO forces should go back to the traditional Afghan model of leadership, the Loya Jirga, the assembly of Afghan tribal leaders called to make decisions concerning the whole country. I was rather surprised to hear this floated by such a big-government liberal as Kucinich but I think it is a better option that what is going on now. Granted, I say that as someone who considers all the parliaments, political parties and mass politics of the modern era in government as something abhorent in human history.

Afghanistan has never had a modern, central government ruling the whole country. It would be far better to restore the Afghan monarchy, with the Loya Jirga assembling for major national issues and beyond that allowing the country to function in the traditional way that it has for centuries before outside forces corrupted it. Anything else will be like trying to put a square peg in round hole. If centralized power has not worked, de-centralized power could at least be tried and as for the war, if we are not going to fight with everything we've got the troops should come home immediately before another life is wasted. I am certainly not someone who shudders at the thought of war, nor am I someone who takes it lightly (anyone who does has never been shot before) but if you are not going to fight forcefully and aggressively with all of your strength you are wasting time, money and lives to no purpose. As a French emperor of some military ability named Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "The only logical end to defensive warfare, is surrender". That is my rant for today. I am done. And I am . . . The Mad Monarchist.

Remembering September 11, 2001

It is hard to believe that eight years have passed since the 9-11 attacks. I remember that morning very well, being up early for a dental appointment. I turned on the news and the first tower had already been hit. Everyone thought it had been some kind of an accident until the second plane plowed into the other tower. I watched it happen and you could feel the tension as everyone knew America was under attack. Word came in of two more planes being hijacked and no one was sure just how widespread this disaster would be. I remember fighter jets flying air cover over Washington DC and as I drove south the next day the bridge to Mexico was sealed off and border agents were wearing body armor and carrying M-16's. It was like nothing I or anyone else had ever experienced before. Family members in the military were called to their bases and we knew it would only be a matter of time before the game of war was afoot. However, rather than reflect on the disaster of 9-11, keeping to the "theme" of this blog, I thought it appropriate to flesh out the monarchist dimension of this crisis.

It should surprise no one that the man responsible for 9-11, the infamous coward Osama bin-Laden, is a republican of sorts. Born in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia he is an avowed enemy of the Saudi monarchy and would like to see them replaced by a Taliban-style theocracy (picture a Sunni version of the Islamic Republic of Iran only worse and you'll be off to a good start). Likewise, it is worth remembering that the Taliban was only able to come to power after the rightful king, Mohammad Zahir Shah, had been overthrown in a coup by his prime minister. Following the destruction of the Taliban government it was, naturally, unthinkable to the US government to support the restoration of the King though he was finally able to return to his homeland and was declared the "Father of the Country" by the new republican government and, at least, monarchists were able to run for office and compete in national elections which was certainly not the case under the Taliban.

Alongside the US forces in Afghanistan many monarchies have contributed to the "War on Terror" including the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by coalition forces proved more controversial but was at least similar to the Afghanistan case in that a usurping republican dictator was overthrown and monarchist parties were able to compete in the electoral process for the first time since the destruction of the Kingdom of Iraq in 1958 with the massacre of the King and Royal Family by pro-Marxist revolutionaries. Although that monarchy was something of a creation and certainly had its problems, it should be remembered that it was the last Iraqi government to have a working parliamentary system. So, the next time someone complains that the republic isn't working because Iraqis have "never had a democracy" you can point out that they did -under the monarchy! What the future holds for these new regimes and for the "War on Terror" or whatever the Obama government is calling it these days to avoid offending anyone, only time will tell. 9-11 is a day to remember and it should be for monarchists as well, remembering that the terrorist regimes in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq which have been the source of so much trouble all came to power through the death of monarchies and the radical terrorists who are still causing trouble today are just as anti-monarchy (seeing it as un-Islamic of all things) as any secularist republican.