The Crimean War All Over Again?

The U.S. Senate, you know, the upper house of the American legislature with a Republican majority that could not muster enough Republican votes to appeal ‘Obamacare’ which they spent the last seven years promising to do, did manage to pass a sanctions bill against Russia, with Iran and North Korea added as an afterthought, with a huge bi-partisan majority of Republicans and Democrats. Because North Korea was added it must now go back to the House of Representatives but is certain to pass there, again, with Democrat and Republican support, with a large enough majority to override any presidential veto. The Trump has said he will sign it, despite some earlier misgivings, I think simply because he will look impotent if he vetoes a bill that becomes law anyway. Some people, on both the left and the right by the way, have warned that this is insane as sanctions usually end with war and, as Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons, such a thing could be disastrous.

U.S. forces in Narva, Estonia (which borders Russia)

What is the reason for this? It depends on who you ask. The Democrats, of course, are still wailing about Russia “hacking” the 2016 election, “attacking our democracy” and so on while the Republicans justify their support (as some Democrats do too) by pointing to Russian actions in Ukraine. The Ukrainians, coincidentally I’m sure, have also recently been talking about joining NATO and the European Union but no one in the halls of power in Washington DC or Brussels think Russia should have any reason to worry about that. However, the European Union (pertinent here as it contains most of Europe’s remaining monarchies) has said they are less than thrilled about these sanctions which will impact European companies which do business with Russia, particularly in the energy sector as Europe buys most of their natural gas from Russia. It is a far cry from the tone of the same European leaders who wailed about Russian interference in the French presidential elections or Russian interference in the “Brexit” vote and who backed the NATO military buildup in the Baltic. The EU, it seems, wants to endlessly provoke Russia but does not want to actually put their money where their mouth is.

The American politicians, needless to say, do not want war with Russia either (though a war with Syria or Iran is something I would not consider beyond them) and they would be doing none of this if they believed for a moment that Russia would ever fight back. The more dim even act as though they are completely ignorant of the fact that the choice between war or peace with Russia is one that is not only up to them but up to the leadership in Moscow as well. I really wish people would learn from history, the common lament of historians of all ages I am sure. All of this should remind us of the Crimean War and not just because Crimea and Ukraine are again at issue. For those not familiar or who would like to refresh their memory, read this past post about the Clash of Monarchies in the Crimean War. Suffice it to say that neither Britain or France really expected to get into a war with Russia over what amounted to a sort of turf-feud between Christian factions in the Holy Land. Napoleon III of France, who took the side of the Catholics (silly man), was satisfied by Turkish concessions on the issue and the British, being a Protestant country and not Catholic or Orthodox really had ‘no dog in the fight’, so to speak, concerning the original issue. How then did this all come to war?

British troops depart for Crimea

The answer lies with the British, specifically the British politicians and their allies in the media. Already sounding familiar isn’t it? One political faction in Britain wanted to fight, or at least said that they did, while the other urged compromise. They were more concerned about fears of Russian rivalry on the wider world stage, about areas where the British and Russian empires were bumping up against each other in Central Asia. They portrayed the Russians as brutes and Czar Nicholas I as a ruthless tyrant who suppressed opposition, killed dissidents and so on. Doesn’t that sound familiar? They could not compare him to Hitler of course but no doubt they did the best they could along those same lines. Their allies in the media pumped up public outrage against the Russians, picking on the poor, victimized Turks, and the demand for action by the British government began to grow at an alarming rate. This is how, in the end, the Her Majesty’s government was forced by public pressure, their own alarmism and brinksmanship into a war they did not really want over issues that could not be clearly defined.

After having stoked the fires of anti-Russian sentiment to such a degree, the politicians in London were left with no other option but to make good on their threats rather than face the public humiliation of backing down from their hysteria. The Czar of Russia was not averse to talking the matter over but he was also not about to back down over an issue in which he clearly felt that he was in the right. He would not and, given his character, could not simply wash his hands of the large Orthodox Christian population living under Ottoman rule in the Holy Land and the Balkans. The result was a war in which nearly 40,500 British troops were killed, France lost over 100,000, Sardinia lost just over 2,000 and the Turks lost almost 45,500 men. The Russians lost the war of course and had casualties of over half a million, just over 500,000 compared to total Allied losses of just over 200,000. Their position was severely weakened and yet, what had the Allies really won with their victory over Russia in Crimea? The French abandoned their interests in the region when another republic replaced Napoleon III, brought down by the Germans in 1870, and the Russian Imperial Navy was soon back in the Black Sea and the British could do nothing about it since neither the French or Germans would support them. Hopes the British had of added Alaska to Canada were thwarted when Czar Alexander II sold the vast territory to the United States. What had Britain gained? Not much.

President Vladimir Putin

What is possibly the most frustrating thing for me about so many of these international issues is the empty preening of the political classes of the various countries which they often represent. For example, the U.S. is going to put harsher sanctions on Russia because they “interfered” in the last U.S. election and they invaded a neighboring country. Okay, let us suppose for a moment all of that is true, you could also say the same thing about Communist China and yet, not only does the U.S. refrain from putting sanctions on China but both parties howled in anguish when they thought the Trump was going to start a “trade war” with China. Are the Ukrainians more worthy of support than the Tibetans, Indians or Vietnamese? Was the Chinese desire for a Bill Clinton victory any more interfering than the Russian desire for a Hillary Clinton defeat? The answer is that putting sanctions on Russia has no impact on the U.S. because America does very little business with Russia anyway. It does a great deal of business with China, as everyone else does, even Taiwan, and so sanctions on China would be even more problematic for America than the sanctions on Russia are for Europe.

It is, I think, worthwhile to take a step back and look at the basic situation here. Russia does not have military forces or military bases in any country bordering the United States. Russia has not attacked the United States and the same European leaders who howled about Trump rubbishing NATO during the campaign and demanded reassurance of America’s commitment to their defense are now not wanting to get so tough on Russia after all. Iran, likewise, (and regular readers will know what I think of the monstrous and illegitimate regime in Tehran) is no threat to the United States and never have Shiite Islamic terrorists attacked the United States itself. Sunni Islamic terrorists have, many, many times and yet we are sanctioning the Islamic Republic of Iran while selling weapons to the (Sunni) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. North Korea, finally, is more problematic and yet, one could make the case that they would not be threatening America if American forces were not right next door in South Korea and Japan. The South Korean government, particularly the new President, does not want to take a hard line with North Korea and is very friendly with China. So, on that front, my question is; if South Korea is not worried about the North, why should Americans be? Pull the U.S. forces out and let South Korea handle the situation.

Where sanctions tend to lead...

Both sides of most of these issues are doing a great deal of talking and threatening and most of them do not really mean a word of what they are saying. However, my concern is that the Democrats and Republicans in America are creating a media hysteria that will pull them into a war with Russia, a stupid, pointless war even if it be victorious, just as happened to Britain in the Crimean War. I would also point out again that the ultimate decision between war or peace is not up to the stuff-shirts in Washington alone. The U.S. once put sanctions on Japan, tougher and tougher sanctions all while proclaiming how the U.S. only wanted peace. On the Sunday morning of December 7, 1941 they found out the hard way that the other side has a say in when wars start too, not just your own. I would hate to see that happen again, particularly when no vital interest is at stake and on behalf of alliances that are a total farce.

Royal News Special Report: Thoughts on Brexit

Yesterday, the people of the United Kingdom (or rather the people of England) voted to leave the European Union and reclaim the independence of Great Britain. I must admit, I did not think the British public had it in them any longer but, though it was narrower than I would have liked, the Brits have proven to be made of sterner stuff than I had been giving them credit for. In the face of opposition from basically the entire global ruling class, Britons voted to take back their sovereignty from the meddling bureaucrats and shadowy puppet-masters in Brussels. That is nothing short of historic and it is not because the European Union was some sort of major force in the world. It is basically a continental Ponzi scheme that has been struggling to survive even with extensive assistance. Rather, it is historic because the British voters chose to break with the narrative, to defy the internationalist ruling class of politicians and big business in Washington, London, Brussels and Peking. They defied the ruling class, showed two fingers to “the establishment” and did what all of those with power and influence and celebrity around the world told them NOT to do.

Now, from the monarchist perspective, this was the right decision regardless of the political or economic situation. The United Kingdom, as with any traditional monarchy, is supposed to have *one* sovereign, above which there is no higher, earthly authority. The Queen, represented in law by “the Crown”, is the embodiment of the nation and the source for all government authority. All law, authority and legitimacy comes from the Crown and as such there is to be nothing above the Crown. The Queen, as the embodiment of the nation, appoints the prime minister who governs the country and it is the powers of the Crown which the government exercises. Given all of that, the idea that the Westminster Parliament, the British courts and laws given legitimacy by the authority of the Queen could all be overruled by acts of the European Union is a disgraceful and disjointed state of affairs that any loyalist should have been repelled by on principle. U.K. membership in the E.U. was also a snubbing of the Queen’s other subjects from Canada to Australia in favor of others to which Britain has no ancestral, cultural or historical connection whatsoever. But the bottom line is that the government of Britain is supposed to be the Queen’s government and is supposed to answer to her and not to Brussels.

For myself, the most impressive thing about this outcome was the defiance of the global ruling class. All the celebrities in Britain backed “remain”, Tony Blair, Call Me Dave Cameron, all the leading political figures in Britain backed “remain”. The rulers of the EU of course warned Britain to “remain”, the Japanese wanted Britain to “remain” and President Obama even came to Britain and basically threatened people to vote “remain” and the British had the courage to defy all of these people, to reject their efforts to tell them what to do and also defied the elites of international finance. Yesterday, stocks on Wall Street were up, because everyone expected Britons to vote the way they had been told and this, in my opinion, was also an effort by the financial elites to effect the outcome. As the day went on and into the night (in America) it became clear that the “leave” vote was winning, stocks in Asia and futures in America started to fall. Japan actually shut down the Nikkei for a time for fear there would be a collapse. I don’t think this was based on rationality but rather was an outpouring of petulant anger by the leaders of the global economy for the British people defying their wishes and making things more difficult for them. I applaud Britain for showing these people that they are not as all-powerful as they thought they were.

I do not believe the economic consequences will be as bad as people think, or at least they do not need to be because nothing in Britain has changed and some things will likely get better but that all depends on policy going forward. If things do get worse it will be because the international economic elites are trying to punish Britain for their rejection of their domination. Germans are still going to want to sell goods to Britain and Britain has long had a trade imbalance with the rest of the EU. Likewise, Britain has long been in the top ten of countries that buys the most and sells the most to the United States and a 2015 survey found that 90% of Americans have a favorable view of the British. This vote will not change that just as it does not change the fact that the two biggest financial centers of the western world have long been New York and London. Some of the international finance elites may want to punish Britain for the vote, but people still want to make money so they are still going to want to do business with Great Britain and barring any radical, idiotic changes in policy, that is not going to change no matter what the hysterical people say. They are simply upset that their cozy set-up has been inconvenienced.

Again, what happens going forward will depend on the British government, the policies they pursue and what the British people decide going forward (such as in Scotland and Northern Ireland) but I think this is a great day and it offers up a great deal of new possibilities for the future of Great Britain. I would hope that Britain renews and strengthens economic and military ties with the Commonwealth, I would like to see a stronger relationship between the countries of the Anglosphere and I would hope that the whole rotten edifice of the EU will start to collapse. I would welcome an “exit” vote in The Netherlands and Denmark, I would like to see Spain withdraw and draw closer to Latin America. There are things I would like to see for other European countries but for most of them they need to get a traditional, legitimate form of government back as their first priority. After that, and there would in many cases have to be some pain as they face the reality of their economic situation and make the hard choices that have been put off for far too long but, after that, there are plenty of possibilities for things to get better. Many people have highlighted the similarity between “Brexit” supporters and the rise of Donald Trump in America. There is something to that in as far as nationalism versus globalism goes but I want all of these countries to be “great” again and they can be. We know they can be for the simple reason that they have been before and they didn’t need the European Union to make that happen.

Congratulations to Great Britain and God Save the Queen!

Parting Company with Peter Hitchens and Why Leadership Matters

First of all, let me begin by saying that I am a big fan of Peter Hitchens and there is much I agree with him on. I appreciate his often lone voice of sanity in British society and I hope he long continues to make himself heard. Even when I disagree with him, I still find his views thoughtful and well worth considering. That being said, I have increasingly found myself disagreeing with him, though it is not the first time. I can remember many years ago when he came to America and mentioned in an interview how woefully backward and cruel it was for the United States not to provide “free” healthcare to its citizens as the NHS does in Britain (though later he became quite known for his completely correct criticisms of that monument to inefficiency and government incompetence). In recent years he has taken on an increasingly pessimistic tone, effectively writing off the United Kingdom and the British people as done for. I would like to disagree with that but, as he lives there and I do not, I cannot say he is wrong, only that I hope he is. Where I do think he is wrong is his current infatuation with the Putin regime in Russia and how it relates to the rest of the world, particularly Germany.

Mr. Hitchens is always quick to begin by stressing that he believes Vladimir Putin to be a cruel and tyrannical despot before launching into a full-throated defense of the man, his regime, all it does and even his allies such as the Ayatollah in Iran (who Mr. Hitchens maintains is not nearly so dangerous as he pretends to be or that the rest of the world thinks he is, chants of “Death to England” not withstanding). Actually, there is, as it concerns Russia at least, some areas in which I still agree with him on. I can see as clearly as anyone, as Mr. Hitchens has pointed out, that it has been Russian power that has been shrinking and the membership of NATO and the European Union that has been expanding. I agree with him that Russia is quite right to be upset by foreign meddling in bordering countries and, while I will not say the same for Europe, I certainly would accept that what happens in the Caucasus or Ukraine (or even the Baltic, Poland or Finland) does not involve the vital interests or national security of the United States. Were America to pull out of Eastern Europe and Russia to swallow all of these countries tomorrow it would have no impact on anyone in North America at all. Where I do disagree with Mr. Hitchens is on the nature of the European Union and his view on its foreign policy in regards to Russia. It seems to me he is being quite inconsistent on the issue of “leadership”.

As to the nature of the European Union, Mr. Hitchens has often said that, “the EU is the continuation of Germany by other means”, a take on the famous quote from Clausewitz about war. He has said that the EU is simply the latest incarnation of the German empire which has the same goals and policies as Nazi Germany had and Wilhelmine Germany before them, particularly in regards to Eastern Europe. As he sees it, there is no real difference in the policies of the different German regimes, only the methods they employ to further what are the natural destiny of the German people to dominate the continent of Europe. I absolutely disagree with this both because I see very real and immense differences between the different German regimes, all they stood for and all they tried to do and I disagree with it because it seems to me to grossly exaggerate the power and influence of, if arguably the German government, certainly the German people who are, as we speak, rapidly becoming an endangered species in their own countries to say nothing of Europe as a whole. It seems to me to be an attempt on his part to rationalize the actions of Russia by saying that their paranoia regarding the Germans and all their friends and associations is entirely justified while at the same time arguing that all western, German or East European paranoia regarding Russia is totally irrational. This is where the inconsistency comes into play.

On almost every occasion that I can recall, in which Mr. Hitchens talks about Russia, he makes a point of saying that while he defends Russia today he totally opposed the Soviet Union. He stresses that the Soviet Union is dead and gone, Russia today is nothing at all like the Soviet Union and that the Soviet Union had global aspirations which Russia today does not have or desire. This is, in my view, not entirely wrong but it is inconsistent when compared to his portrayal of the European Union and particularly Germany. He is saying that Germany has natural drives which influence German foreign policy in a similar direction, no matter if it is a Bundeskanzler, Führer or Kaiser at the helm of the ship of state. However, at the same time he is saying that Russia has no such similar natural drives that would influence Russian foreign policy regardless of the governments that come and go in leading the Russian people. This is where things become a bit complicated but suffice it to say that, on the contrary, I believe there are certain trends in foreign policy that prevail because of things as permanent and immovable as geography but I also think it matters a great deal just what sort of government and what sort of leader a country, such as Germany or Russia, has at its head.

To put it another way, I think there was a very big difference between the Kaiser and Hitler, just as there is a very big difference between Putin and the Czar. I also think there is a quite huge difference between the actions, character and fundamental nature of the modern European Union compared to the vision of Europe that Hitler had or that Kaiser Wilhelm II had before him. This is why I say that leadership matters and peoples are not necessarily going to go on along a predestined course regardless of who is in charge. The Kaiser, for example, had no thought of dominating Eastern Europe before the war situation placed the opportunity before him. His focus was on colonial competition with Great Britain. It was only after the war started and the British blockade began to be felt that the German leadership began to look to the east as a source of vital resources which would make them invulnerable to British naval superiority. Indeed, it was one of the greatest hopes of Kaiser Wilhelm II, which he tried very hard to carry out, to split Russia away from the British to be an ally of Germany (though aside from the nationalist rivalry of the Teutonic vs. the Slav the real impediment to this was never Germany but rather Austria and whether Austria or Russia was going to have prevailing influence in the Balkans). Hitler, on the other hand, had an ideological rivalry with Soviet Russia which the Kaiser never had as well as ramping up the nationalistic/racial rivalry to its ultimate extreme. For him and his regime, a fight to the finish with Russia was inevitable because either National Socialism and the German race would survive or international socialism and the Slavic (and assorted eastern races) would. His views and character would not and could not permit any compromise.

On the Russian side of things, it is true, the nature of the current Russian regime is not the same as the Soviet Union but I disagree with Mr. Hitchens that there are no similarities in policy at all and I most adamantly disagree with him that the current Russian regime is in any way preferable to the Russian Empire under the Romanov dynasty, a view he has also expressed. While Putin has got many things right, taking actions I think a man like Czar Nicholas II would approve of, he has also done horrible things that no self-respecting Romanov would ever dream of doing. If Czar Nicholas II were around to deal with post-Soviet Russian leaders, I think he would have had Yeltsin shot as a traitor and would think Putin possibly insane. This is not to take the popular view, mostly fostered by knee-jerk anti-Russian sentiment in the west (mirrored by similar knee-jerk anti-western or anti-American sentiment in Russia) that Putin is some sort of bloodthirsty warmonger out to conquer and dominate as much of the world as possible. On the contrary, while I think there are actions Putin has taken which no Czar ever would have, I also think he has failed to take action and submitted to treatment by the western powers that the Czar would never have tolerated. Even Czar Nicholas II, one of the most mild mannered of his dynasty, was a man who may not have always won but who never failed to at least make every effort.

Despite what Mr. Hitchens chooses to believe, much of Russian foreign policy is simply left-over Soviet foreign policy. The same could be said for much of the foreign policy of the western countries and it is truly unfortunate that neither side has yet to produce a leader willing to be the ‘bigger man’ and break the vicious cycle. Sticking with Russia though, let us consider a few examples to compare and contrast the foreign policies of the Romanov, Soviet and post-Soviet governments to see what impact national leadership (such as having a Czar) had on the world. Czar Nicholas II pursued a pragmatic foreign policy that was based on geographic realties, tempered by his principles as a monarch who stood guard over part of Christian civilization. The Soviet Union pursued a foreign policy that was based on Marxist ideology and the pursuit of global domination. They wished to Bolshevize the world, supported Marxist regimes wherever they could (provided they accepted Russian dominance) and opposed non-communist regimes in all instances. Current Russian foreign policy seems to be partly maintaining what relationships the Soviet Union left behind and partly nothing more than short-sighted reactions to a mostly decrepit west which they fearfully insist is still a dire threat to their existence.

Czar Nicholas II, for example, would never have allied himself with Communist China. He certainly would never have ceded them territory or granted them special access to Russian natural resources. Even their fellow communists of the Soviet era had more sense than to help arm and enrich an ambitious country with a huge population right at their backdoor. For the Czar there was a principle in mind, as he saw himself as the guardian of Christian civilization as the Russians had always been since the dissolution of the Mongol empire. There was also practical reality to consider. Centuries of experience, including their own subjugation by the Mongols out of which modern Russia was born, made the Czar realize that Russia stretched rather precariously across the Asian continent and was determined to prevent any other power from threatening Russia’s position. If anyone tried, be it the Persians (Iranians), the British in India or the Chinese they would be met by a wall of Russian steel. When Japan began to rise in power and influence in the Far East, starting with the occupation of Korea, Czar Nicholas II made it perfectly clear that if they wanted to be dominant in the region they would have a fight on their hands. Russia lost the war but Japan ultimately did not feel like a winner and most of Manchuria and all of Mongolia remained within the Russian sphere of influence until the Russian Revolution. To befriend, arm and enrich a country like China in what simply seems to be an effort to frighten countries which China is not even able to reach, would, I think, strike the Czar as baffling.

Equally baffling, I think, would be the current Russian support of the Islamic Republic of Iran, again, for seemingly little reason other than to annoy foreign powers which Iran can do little to nothing against. The Czar maintained a firm hold on the Russian position with Iran and knew all too well what the current Russian regime seems to naively overlook; that while Russians today may have forgotten that areas such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Dagestan were gained at the expense of Iran, the Iranians still today have certainly not forgotten this and are not about to. The Czar would, I think, be quite astounded that a Russian government would do so much to arm and enrich countries with long-standing resentments against Russia, which offer little to nothing in return, espouse values totally opposed to those of his own and which long for the day when they can regain what they previously lost to Russia, be it Armenia for the Iranians or Vladivostok to the Chinese (a perusal of social media will show people still want these places back even after so many centuries). And all for what? Oil? A resource Russia already has in abundance and which, at the time of this writing, is rapidly becoming next to worthless? Simply because they hate the United States and Russia hates the United States as well, a country which has never fought a war with Russia, has no territorial disputes with Russia and shares not a single border with Russia? It makes no sense and I doubt seriously any of the old Czars would pursue it.

However, what about Eastern Europe? Here finally is an area where Mr. Hitchens and President Putin have a much better case to make. As stated earlier, the EU has been expanding far faster and to a far greater extent compared to Russia’s miniscule gains against Georgia or the annexation of Crimea. The inclusion of countries such as Finland, the Baltic states and Poland into NATO is something which no one with any common sense should have expected any Russian government worth its salt to simply accept. And yet, there is the problem and it is a problem of inaction rather than the actions Russia has taken in Asia. Because, Russian governments, Putin included, have accepted it and so it has become a fact of life that will stand firm until such time as the American voters grow tired of shouldering the risk and financial burden of standing guard over a continent whose peoples thoroughly despises them and whose independence or subjugation would have no impact on their lives at all. It is though, in the Balkans where I think rests the most glaring difference between modern Russian foreign policy and the foreign policy of a traditional Romanov monarch like Czar Nicholas II. Western anti-Putin or anti-Russian controversialists who like to paint Vladimir Putin as a warmonger should pay attention to this example because it disproves their narrative completely and that example is Kosovo.

To put it bluntly, if the Czar were in power in Russia today Kosovo would still be part of Serbia, no question about it. Once again, I fail to see what practical gain the separation of Kosovo has had for any of the western powers involved but that by itself bolsters my firm belief that if the Czar were around today it never would have happened. He would have made it very clear to all parties involved that he would not stand for such a thing and such an effort against the territorial integrity of Serbia would mean trouble with Russia. Had such a line been drawn, there is no doubt in my mind that no one would have dared to cross it because, again, even if most of the leadership in the west were not a bunch of feckless schemers, there would have been everything to risk for practically no gain on their part. It did not have to happen and if the Russian bear had showed her fangs there is not a doubt in my mind that it would not have happened and NATO would have shrugged its shoulders and walked away. Such an action might also have prevented Romania and Bulgaria from joining NATO in the next enlargement in 2004. Whether this would have pleased their peoples, I cannot say but it is demonstrably true that the security of Western Europe or North America is not impacted in any way by the status of Romania or Bulgaria which were dominated by the Soviet Union for decades, at times occupied by Russian troops and the member states of NATO got along just fine. Under different leadership, there would have been and had been different policies. I think the Czar would find it incredible that Russian forces would be put in harm’s way to defend a left-wing secular dictator in Syria but would not even be used as a threat to defend the territorial integrity of a fellow Slavic and Orthodox Christian country such as Serbia. The events which led Russia into the First World War demonstrate, I think, quite clearly that this would be so. And anyone can see that the leadership in Germany, for example, is not the same and would not have responded in the same way as the Kaiser did in 1914. No one would have gone to war with Russia for the sake of Kosovo.

Finally, just to bring it back to Germany and the European Union, leadership matters in this instance as well. The European Union does not stand for the German domination of Europe and a leader like Kaiser Wilhelm II would never be party to such a monstrosity as the current EU. I firmly believe this is so because, contrary to what some may think (though I fail to see how), the EU does not benefit Germany in any way, no more than it benefits any other country which is to say not at all. The German people gain nothing from the EU, indeed, they have only served to be milked like a cow by it. The Germans are not dominating Europe by the EU but rather are simply the guilt-ridden beast of burden that the EU bureaucrats, from various countries, are using to carry them to a life of wealth and power while the heart of western civilization is going to ruin. The EU political class has benefited from the EU but no country has benefited from it at all. The wealthier countries are exploited by it, they give and others take but even the most indebted member states, such as Greece, no more benefit from the EU than an addict benefits from his drug dealer. I will say though, to end on a note that Peter Hitchens just might agree with me on, whereas I do think President Putin has made some astounding errors, I do not think he can be compared to the leadership of those in power in countries such as Germany or Sweden or even the United States under Barrack Obama who, by their actions, have forced me to conclude that their “mistakes” are quite deliberate, that they generally despise their own people and are intentionally doing them harm. None more so, it seems, than Germany. Far from being about dominating Europe, the Germans will be lucky to even survive as a people thanks to the policies of the EU and their own government in Berlin.

Leadership matters. Russia was much better served when the Czar was in power, Germany was much better served when the Kaiser was in power and the English-speaking world was much better governed when the King still had at least some considerable influence and the House of Lords was not filled with political appointees. For that matter, America was much better governed when we had presidents that looked after American interests rather than trying to “make the world safe for democracy” or to cut us down to size because he thinks we’ve been too successful. Leadership does matter, the principles, the values (or the lack thereof) of leaders matters because they influence their decisions and those decisions have consequences. For myself, I look at the world today and would be very hard-pressed to name even a single country that is better governed now than it was in 1900. Leadership has changed dramatically and, in my view, clearly not for the better. I may be almost as sour in my estimation of the modern world as Peter Hitchens but I do think things have been better before. I absolutely do not agree that Putin is in any way or by any measure preferable to the Czar and while I do agree that Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union and should not be treated the same way, I would also extend the same courtesy to the Germans and say that Germany is not the same as it was under Hitler nor the same as it was under the Kaiser and should not be judged as such. Leadership has changed and those changes have made a significant difference, for themselves and the world.

The E.U. and What Crisis Forgot

Today is the anniversary of the signing of the Maastricht Treaty which gave birth to the European Union as we know it today. However, before there was the European Union, there was the European Community, an economic bloc whose senior member was the European Coal and Steel Community. The statesmen who put this seemingly innocent organization together are regarded as the "Founding Fathers" of the European Union, though one would be inclined to believe that they would be horrified by what their child has grown into. That assumption comes from the fact that we are often told, such as in a recent article in the Catholic periodical Crisis Magazine, that these men were all devout and sincere Catholics while the European Union of today seems not only indifferent to Christianity but positively hostile to it. The article in question, "How the EU Betrayed Its Christian Founding Principles" points to the devout Catholic piety of these founders, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, French diplomat Jean Bonet, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Italian Prime Minister Alcide de Gasperi, how they were inspired by Christian morality, forgiveness, reconciliation, subsidiarity and the old Frankish empire of Charlemagne and how the modern EU falls so very short in all of those areas. The article stresses that these values need to be restored if the EU is to survive.

Frankly, I do not concur as I see the reformation of the EU as impossible and its survival as undesirable. These men may indeed have been very devout Catholics, I cannot say, but I cannot help but be somewhat skeptical. It is true, as the article states, that all but Adenauer are currently at varying points along the path to sainthood in the Catholic Church and Pope Francis has recently "fast-tracked" the cause for the canonization of the first Prime Minister of the Italian Republic Alcide de Gasperi but that is not enough to convince me. As stated before, the Catholic Church has also placed every single deceased pope since the Second Vatican Council on the path to sainthood (one having already achieved it via the innovative "fast-track" process) but considering that this same period has coincided with a rapid decline for Catholicism, I feel justified in my skepticism of the motives behind this sudden flurry of papal saints just as I do the drive to declare the Founding Fathers of the EU to be saints. Looking at either the Catholic Church or the European Union, if all of these canonizations are beyond reproach, one can only conclude that saintly leaders may not make the best leaders. Perhaps the old saying that, "great men are rarely good men" is more true than we would like to believe?

In any event, to focus on Schuman, Bonet and de Gasperi, if their goal was to remake the empire of Charlemagne they, and Crisis Magazine, seem to be forgetting the other key ingredient to that recipe alongside the shared faith of Christendom which was the Emperor. Monarchy is what they have forgotten and partly why I am skeptical of how intelligent, accomplished, devoutly Catholic men thought that they could do without it. For most of Christian history it was taken for granted that having an emperor was as essential as having a pope. It was the emperor who called most of the early councils of the Church, it was the emperor who was expected to defend and advance the faith that the Pope taught and was the combination of throne and altar that was the foundation of Christendom and the basis of what European unity there was in those days. It is simply impossible for me to look at these great statesmen as being too pristine in their piety considering that they were all republicans. If they truly wanted to restore Christendom, why were Schuman and Bonet not working for the restoration of the Kingdom of France, Adenauer for the restoration of the German Empire and why was Alcide de Gasperi not absolutely loyal to his own monarch, King Umberto II?

To me, this is the central, forgotten, element. These men started out with the economic integration of western Europe, based on republican regimes that looked to ensure the peace of Europe, not by forgiveness and reconciliation but by ensuring that all would be economically bound together that any conflict would be impossibly ruinous for all. No, it does not seem to me at all to be an effort to recreate the Europe of the Ages of Faith but rather an effort to gain the benefits of peace and unity by political and economic means rather than sincere faith and shared moral values. The only shared values of the West German, French and Italian republics were their shared glorification of the mob and lip-service to liberal idealism which has no moral foundation, no religious core and can never have as it is based on nothing but pride and vanity. Today, we see the results all too clearly. The mob is so easily manipulated and led astray that today the leaders of the EU can all but ignore them. They feel no connection to their people at all as they feel just as responsible (if not more) for the welfare of people from other countries than they do for their own.

The article in question notes those moral failings of the EU members which have occurred when supposedly "conservative" governments were in power, which is true and it is no wonder. They have a conservatism built on sand, they are playing a rigged game and even in monarchies like Britain or Spain they have adopted the leftist-republican mentality. These parties are shamed into doing what anyone with common sense knows to be wrong but they do it because they are playing on the leftist field, by leftist standards and so they are constantly having to give in so that they may avoid being condemned as "evil" (racist, intolerant, bigoted etc) by the leftist measure of right and wrong. That is also why, if things continue as they are, only those who are truly evil and don't care who knows it and are comfortable with the title will be left standing as the only alternative. We must refuse to play by their rules, we must stop submitting to their double-standards, stop being cowed by their name-calling and stand and fight for our own before we have nothing left to fight for.
Vivat imperator in aeternum!

Off Topic Tuesday: Eurozone Crisis

The downward spiral of the European Union continues. I don’t think any long-time readers will be surprised to know what a low opinion I have of the European Union. The farthest I will go is to say that some of the original founders may have had good intentions but the whole idea of Europe as one country frankly disgusts me. I know, there are those who say, and they have said to me, “but Archduke Otto favored European unity” so it must be pretty good right? I have the utmost respect for the late Archduke but, “European unity” is a pretty broad, vague thing to be in favor of and for all those who list off all the royals, aristocrats or even popes who, they say, favor a united Europe my only response is that guys like Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosley favored a united Europe too. If one wants to argue that the “concept” is a good one, we can have that argument, but there is no doubt in my mind that what actually exists today in those hideous buildings in Brussels is absolutely something to oppose every step of the way. Anytime the EU finds itself falling on hard times I feel like standing up and cheering.

That being said, I cannot be completely upbeat about the current crisis in Europe because it is proving that your average European is just as dumb as your average American in that *they just don't get it*. Just like your majority, apathetic, mainstream Americans, your average Europe has not gotten the message: Socialism Doesn't Work! You cannot get something for nothing, you cannot run up debts and expect future generations to cover the bill (especially when you cannot be bothered to actually produce a future generation) and punishing success and rewarding failure is not the way to create a successful economy. These are not difficult concepts to grasp, yet precious few today seem able to. The austerity measures (such as they are) did not happen in Greece because people suddenly saw the error of their ways. They only happened because Greece ran out of money, couldn't pay back their debts, couldn't get anymore loans and so the Greek borrower became the slave of the EU lender. That is my biggest concern with the current crisis; that, as I see it now, no one seems to be learning from their mistakes but throw an infantile fit at the government gravy train being cut off and turning their anger on whatever unfortunate party or coalition just happens to be in power.

In Spain, for example, recent elections turned out the socialists and brought the 'very, very slightly right-of-center leaning' party to power. I was certainly glad to see the socialists go, it turned my stomach every time King Juan Carlos had to meet with that crowd, but while I don't want to ignore those people who voted them out for the right reasons, most did not. I don't think most Spaniards voted against the socialists because they realize they're wrong (on social as well as economic issues) but simply voted them out because they happened to be in power when the house of cards collapsed. In Italy it was the 'very, very slightly right-of-center' Berlusconi who was tossed out, again, not because of scandals or anything that concrete, but mostly because he happened to be the one in power at the time. He certainly did not create the current disaster that is the Italian economy all by himself since becoming prime minister in 2008. So there was some public outcry but, most importantly, the EU wanted him gone (they had never liked him much anyway). The EU has imposed new leadership on Greece, in Italy (surprise, surprise) the new PM Mario Monti is a long-time EU-supporter and one who actually did help Italy get to where she is now by helping arrange the massive loans to keep up the fools paradise illusion while the country was going broke.

The people though, so far, are not so upset with the EU establishing dictatorial power over the member states, not so upset with the policies that have driven them into bankruptcy and not so upset that the EU has had to go to China (perhaps making all of Europe the slave of the Chinese lender) for more bailout money. No, they are upset because they are being told that cannot continue to get all the freebies from the government they have grown acustomed to. As glad as I am to see the EU in crisis, that simple fact still depresses me.

Great Britain and the E.U.

It is certainly no secret that I am no fan of the European Union. I would be hard pressed to think of a modern European problem that did not originate in or was made substantially worse by the policies of the EU. I am, however, willing to concede that there were noble intentions behind the original foundation of what would eventually become the European Union. Many of the original designers and promoters were quite conservative men who had a rather traditional sort of idea in mind for a Europe made up of independent countries joined in a common alliance so as to work out problems without resorting to war and which would foster greater economic freedom between the members. One could imagine something of a modern-day version of the Holy Roman Empire coming to mind. Though, again, I think even men like Schuman, De Gasperi and Adenauer would spin in their graves if they could see what the EU has become today, but that is another story.

However, even taking the most benevolent (to my mind) intentions to heart it is important to note that Great Britain was never part of the Holy Roman Empire, though it was certainly part of the greater entity known as Christendom. The British have a long history of standing aloof from the continent, and most Britons were once quite proud of the fact that they stood apart from Europe. They did not look so much to the continent but to the eternal blue seas and the opportunities that beckoned from far-flung shores; hence we had the once mighty but now vanished British Empire that planted the seeds for what became the American superpower and the regional powers of South Africa, India and Australia. If some might view historic British attitudes as rather arrogant, looking down their noses at the continent and ‘continental types’ it is a simple fact that with the long list of British accomplishments they had rather more to be arrogant about than most countries. All of which is to say that I find it very un-British for the modern subjects of the Queen to even desire to be part of the European Union and to think of themselves as Europeans as much as being British, or English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish for that matter.

There is more to it than perception though. For centuries it was the fundamental goal of British foreign policy to remain detached from Europe, keeping free to diplomatically maneuver and to intervene only in limited, strategic ways to prevent any one power from dominating the continent. This policy could be seen as being older than even the United Kingdom itself. Although there were other motivations involved certainly, England did intervene in the Dutch revolt at a time when Hapsburg Spain and Austria were fairly close to dominating the continent. For the largest part of modern history Britain was bedeviling the French, be it Louis XIV, Louis XV or Napoleon, who either were dominating Europe or coming close to the ability to do so. Sometimes the British have been a little too paranoid in this policy, sometimes with dangerous results. For example, prior to World War I the danger was slim to none of Imperial Germany actually dominating the whole of Europe though they were certainly, overall, the strongest continental power. The resulting war ruined everyone and under the Nazis the Germans were able to come back faster than the rest and did come to dominate the continent and Britain had to sacrifice all in the combined effort to put a stop to that.

Again, some might take a very dim view of this British meddling in continental affairs (though in every case there was at least someone and usually several who invited them to the party) when their primary interests lay with their own empire. However, it was this policy that is generally credited with allowing Britain to maintain her independence and thus the moderate government and free society Britain has traditionally been famous for. Before others should be too quick to criticize they might consider how many times foreign armies have marched through the streets of Paris, Berlin, Rome or Vienna and compare that to the number of times in the same centuries that a foreign army marched into London (I can think of only one possible occasion and in that case they were all but invited by most of the ruling class). Whatever one may say about this policy, barring the odd paranoid overreaction, it was worked quite well and to the great benefit of Great Britain.

Which makes it all the more frustrating that so many in Britain today seem content to not only allow one power, one government, to dominate the whole of Europe but even to willingly submit to it. By turning away from centuries of established foreign policy Great Britain is also turning away from the benefits that policy has brought; namely their freedom which comes from independence. In doing so, instead of drawing closer to and emphasizing the countries of the Commonwealth which whom Britain has more in common than any state on the continent, Great Britain runs the risk of losing that unique sense of themselves and of making themselves subjects to the whims, risks and failures of the ruling elite in Brussels. Already Britain (and the other EU members) have lost far too much of their independence and freedom to act as they think fit. It is rather incredible that Great Britain once rejected the authority of the Pope because they would recognize no higher earthly authority than the monarch only to willingly hand over more far-reaching powers than any king, prince or pope ever had to a collection of foreign bureaucrats. Such actions are unworthy of the United Kingdom, as is the EU as a whole. The sooner Britain is out of it, the better.

Mad Rant: The UESR

The EU crowd, that is the Union of European Socialist Republics, is still crowing over the triumph over the public in Ireland with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, taking the continent one long step closer to becoming the centralized, socialist Euro-super state they have for so long been craving. Europe's unseen and unaccountable masters are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the thought of having a European president, a European defense force and a European foreign and domestic policy. In one way, this is good, because it reveals the hypocrisy of the pro-EU crowd via their actions in Ireland. All along these pro-EU socialists have been assuring everyone that the EU is just a bunch of harmless puppy dogs because everything must be approved unanimously. Of course, the whole Lisbon Treaty process has revealed the truth since Ireland is the only country that actually allowed the people to vote and when they voted "no" they were quick to have them vote again to get the "right" answer. So, yes, all decisions must be unanimously approved but that is hardly a block against power when only hand-picked statist elites are allowed to vote and on the rare occasion that the public of a given country are allowed to vote they are only allowed to vote one way.

I can certainly understand the desire by the EU for this increasing power-grabs; that is what they are all about. They want to build the UESR, doing their best to destroy European civilization in the process. What I cannot understand, even in light of the economic strong-arm tactics, is why a country like Ireland would go along with it or why a country like Croatia is working so hard to get into the EU. Both of these cases are countries that had to fight long and hard for their independence, both of them have been howling for ages about their desire for national sovereignty and yet, just a handful of years after winning their long-sought after independence they eagerly sign over their sovereignty to the ruling elites of the EU. How is the situation better for Ireland being ruled from Brussels rather than being ruled from London? Why is it preferable for Croats to be ruled by 'Europeans' rather than Serbs or Magyars? Don't misunderstand me, I cannot imagine why any country would want to sign away their independence to the collection of political stuff-shirts at the EU but it particularly boggles my mind that countries would do so that only in recent times won their independence after centuries of foreign rule. You would think that they, of all people, would be wary of this!

I am not totally opposed to any/all European unity. In fact, I think that the modern EU monstrosity is nowhere near what men like DeGaulle, DeGasperi, Adenauer and Schumann ever intended or imagined. I think their vision was for a confederation of European countries all pulling in the same direction, not a centralized European super-state ruled by socialists who put the people, history, culture (and that all included the monarchies and the religion) and traditions of Europe second, or not only put them second but wish to flat out destroy them. It is a march down the same old radical revolutionary path; stamping out monarchial authority, stamping out religious authority, centralizing power and making everyone a member of a monotone, uniform engineered society. These people will be the death of western civilization as we know it. That anyone other than the radical revolutionaries would go along with this bewilders me. Yes, I am bewildered and I am ... The Mad Monarchist.