A Few Thoughts on "Independence"

April 1 is the anniversary of the granting of autonomy to the Faroe Islands by the Kingdom of Denmark in 1948. This is an event most of the world is unconcerned with and there is little reason anyone should be. It is a quiet, distant outpost of the old Vikings that attracts little attention. I doubt most people in the world have ever heard of the Faroe Islands or could point them out on a map, however, I am glad that they opted for autonomy rather than claiming “independence” from the King of Denmark in 1948. Autonomy can be quite reasonable, quite rational and can make for a better government when local matters are handled on the local level rather than by a distant administration that may have a less than perfect understanding of the situation. Autonomy says, we will make our own decisions but we are going to maintain certain ties with the mother country. So, the Faroe Islands are an autonomous, rather than independent, country within the “Danish Realm”. The Danish Realm also includes Greenland and should have included the Kingdom of Iceland if they had not gone republican during World War II in a rather underhanded fashion.

What makes a word like “autonomy” so praiseworthy today is how unusually straightforward it is. These days, we tend to be ruled by emotion rather than reason, we tend to lie to ourselves and each other and will happily live totally delusional lies as long as that delusion makes us feel better about ourselves and this applies to entire countries as well as individuals. There are many countries today which claim to be independent which are actually nothing of the sort, they may or may not be autonomous but they are certainly not independent. The word “independent” has been so used and abused in the decades since World War II that I seriously doubt whether people in general actually know what this rather simple word means. Today, the word “independent” seems to be more like a sort of honorific title or a status symbol. Everyone wants to claim it and would take it as a terrible insult if you said the word should not apply. Allow me to give an example, featuring one of my least favorite people.

Some weeks ago when U.S. President Donald Trump issued his first budget proposal, this included rather large spending cuts to numerous government departments such as the Foreign Aid issued by the U.S. State Department. Fox News left-wing commentator, the perpetually grinning Richard Fowler, who can always be counted on to defend anything a Democrat does and condemn anything a Republic does, was on hand to denounce Trump’s proposed budget as not only unwise but inhumane and even, of course, “racist”! He said that there were countries in Africa which would not be able to feed their people if U.S. Foreign Aid was eliminated or cut back to the extent that Trump proposed. Now, he was not specific of course as to which countries in Africa are so poor and incompetent that curtailing their foreign assistance from the U.S. would plummet their population into starvation, but it is true that there are countries in the world that rely heavily on foreign assistance. I can remember, many years ago by now, being astounded to read of island chains in the Pacific, officially “independent” countries, whose primary source of income was U.S. Foreign Aid.

My point is, if there are African countries who depend on the United States so much that American help is required simply to keep them alive, why on earth is anyone pretending that these countries are “independent” in any way, shape or form? The amount of Foreign Aid is not even finally the point. As most know, the State of Israel actually receives more U.S. Foreign Aid than any other country in the world and they are far from being an impoverished land of starvation and disease. I would feel safe in assuming that if the U.S. cut off all Foreign Aid to Israel, there would be many angry words but the Israelis would still make it okay on their own somehow. If you are depending on another country, on another continent in fact, for something as basic as your people being able to eat, I do not see how such a country could be considered independent by any stretch of the imagination.

I do not recall if I made this point here before, but when the U.S. was experiencing the first wave of the women and children refugees from Central America flooding across the border (mostly the south Texas border), I made much the same point then. If the American people must take these people in and care for them because their country is too violent and poor to live in, then it means that the American people and the U.S. government that acts on their behalf (allegedly) is responsible for the security and well being of Central America. If that is true, I said at the time, we should stop pretending these are independent countries, send in the Marines, raise the ‘Stars & Stripes’ and start teaching these people English. This used to be something so simple that everyone could understand. You are either independent or you are not, if you are independent, you do not depend on anyone else for anything. However, if you are depending on another country to give you a good life, to keep you safe, even to feed you, you are clearly NOT independent!

This is partly why I consider so much of the talk, whether from liberals or libertarians, about “freedom” to be such drivel. People don’t really want real freedom. If they did, they would want independence because freedom always accompanies independence. Rather, they want to be taken care of, they want something for nothing, they want to act in a short-sighted, selfish manner and yet never have to suffer any consequences for it. They want to live a lie, a lie that says they are free people in an independent country whereas, in many instances, they are nothing of the sort. Some people are being at least a little bit honest about it. The U.S. territory of Puerto Rico is pushing to become the 51st state of the Union. The Democrats would love to have another “Blue state” to add to the voting rolls, the Republicans are less enthusiastic about taking in an economic basket case that would instantly become the poorest state in America. They would rather see Puerto Rico sever all ties and become independent but the Puerto Rican government, having spent themselves into a bottomless pit of debt by pandering to the public (and lining their own pockets in the process) want to become even more dependent on the U.S.A. because then the American taxpayers will be permanently responsible for taking care of them.

Nor is this a purely African or Latin American problem. No, Europe has many of the same issues. Members of the European Union are supposed to be independent countries and yet they cannot control their immigration policy, cannot control their monetary  policy and can have their own governments and courts overruled by a higher power. That is NOT independence! Up in Canada, Greco-Ukrainian truth-teller Faith Goldy at “The Rebel” recently cited her reasons for not celebrating Greek independence day this year; because Greece is not really independent anymore. She makes a very straight-forward and fact based argument. My only problem is counting “democracy” as one of the great contributions of the Greeks to western civilization since the very leaders she rightly accuses of selling out Greek independence were all voted into office democratically. The people voted themselves into bondage to the money-lenders because they wanted to go on receiving more from the state than they were willing to pay into it.

In the old days, it seems to me, people were more open and honest about this sort of situation and took a more dispassionate view of the subject of independence. Even today, for example, the Principality of Monaco is a legally sovereign country but not technically an independent one. They are a protectorate of the French Republic and, as such, the French government still has certain rights in Monaco. No one seems to mind this too much because they realize that they are simply too small a country to be completely and truly independent. Much the same could be said about the relationship, not identical but similar, between the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation. After the demise of the Austrian Empire, little Liechtenstein had a hard time going it alone and so entered into a customs union with Switzerland. Again, no one felt bad about it or shamed about it, regarding it in a very rational way as something that needed to be done. At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have groups such as the Scottish National Party which howl all the time about their desire for Scottish “independence” but also their desire to maintain their subservience to the European Union. They do not really want independence at all, simply to replace dependence on London with dependence on Brussels. Why they find the EU preferable to the UK, I don’t know but that is the situation.

The bottom line is, we need to stop living in fairyland with everyone playing let’s pretend and get back to reality. We need to call a spade a spade, be honest and up front with ourselves and each other. We need to say that if you are a country that depends entirely on the Chinese for your infrastructure and on the Americans for your livelihood, if your resources are all owned by tycoons in Peking and all your medical care comes from ‘Doctors Without Borders’ then you are not an independent country and have no business pretending to be. If you are part of the EU and have your foreign policy, immigration policy, monetary policy all dictated by Brussels and depend on the German taxpayers to keep your people in unemployment and old age pensions, you are not an independent country and should stop calling yourself one. Let your “yes” mean yes and your “no” mean no, face reality, face facts and stop putting pride and emotion before common sense. Because, as it stands now, this era of self-delusion has brought the world to the brink of disaster and enslavement to a tiny, global elite with no other interest in mind but their own.

Behind a Declaration

Another fourth of July having passed, it is an occasion again to ponder the dramatic events of the American War for Independence, popularly known as the American Revolution (or Revolutionary War). The most important thing about the conflict is that it gave birth to the United States of America which has had no small impact on the subsequent history of the entire world, particularly after assuming global super-power status in the aftermath of World War II. That created some problems for the idea of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence that is still celebrated every fourth of July. As someone once said (I want to say it was Mussolini but I could be wrong), ‘the problem with revolutions is that the revolutionaries survive them’ or words to that effect. With the Declaration of Independence, the American revolutionaries claimed extraordinary powers. They claimed the “right” that any people dissatisfied with their government were justified in using violent means to overthrow that government and replace it with one more to their liking. The document, of course, is silent on how “the people” come to such a decision. After all, no democratic vote was taken across the colonies in favor of independence or even for rising up against the British. Even the most ardent Patriots had to admit that their cause was a minority one and that most colonists either opposed the revolution or were unwilling to support it.

Even at the time those stirring words were penned, exactly who “the people” included was a debatable point. Loyal Americans were even then being killed, tortured, robbed and driven into exile because they did not support the revolution. And, of course, as we still see clearly today, the United States, having achieved independence (and ultimately great power status) has never been willing to apply those same rights to other people or even their own. When the southern states voted to secede from the Union they were met with crushing military force and the utter devastation of their country to force them back into the Union. When the United States won The Philippines from Spain, the Union inherited a guerilla war for independence and American troops had to be sent in to crush the Filipino rebels. Americans are expected to change governments by means of the democratic process rather than armed rebellion, within the structure of the federal republic set up by the constitution with must remain always sacrosanct. Revolutionaries all around the world, oftentimes the most monstrous of characters, have not hesitated to point out to the United States the hypocrisy of American opposition to their own acts of terror and rebellion given how they revere their own founders who did the same.

In that respect, the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence have sometimes been problematic for the United States but because it created the country these things can never be denounced but must be clung to with religious fervor. Some of the very same men who fought the Revolutionary War and helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were some of the same men who had rebels shot for defying government regulations and passed the Alien and Sedition Act which put people in jail for daring to voice opposition to the government. Most historians, if they have any honesty at all, will admit this. However, they will usually fall back on the tired line that, while the American Patriots may not have been perfect, they were at least better than the British alternative. This is most often seen when modern, liberal American scholars must deal with groups they have ordained as perpetual victims; African-Americans and Native Americans. They must admit that men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves but paint them as being kindly masters who were never really comfortable with the institution. To hear some talk, one would think slaves had been forced on these men and that they were incapable of emancipating them even though they really, really wanted to.

They will also have to admit that, during the Revolutionary War, most Blacks took the side of the British Crown. Some will try to appear even-handed and understanding, pointing out (quite correctly) that it only made sense for slaves to side with the British since the British offered freedom in return for service to the Crown. However, most will hasten to add that this was no more than a British ruse and that the British never had any intention of actually keeping that promise. Here, despite their best efforts, their liberal condescension can usually be detected. They paint a picture of unfortunate, ignorant slaves being duped by those dastardly Brits. The truth, of course, is that most African-Americans sided with the British because it was in their own rational self-interest to do so and they were absolutely right. Just as attitudes on race were different in the northern colonies where there were no slaves, so too in Britain itself was slavery regarded as rather unsavory even at that time. Regardless of what happened during the war, slavery would have been abolished in America much earlier had the British won. At the time, the British attitude toward Blacks was not that different from any other people. The only difference was that in Britain the idea of equality, racial or otherwise, was still regarded as absurd. They saw slavery for what it was and that probably helped in getting rid of the institution. In America, on the other hand, slave holders could shout for liberty and be praised for it. Slavery was not really slavery, it was the “peculiar institution”. Because the Founding Fathers had already declared that “all men are created equal” yet still owned slaves, it could only be reasoned that slaves were not just men deprived of their freedom but not men at all, simply property. With such an attitude it is no wonder that slavery lingered in America so long and was so hard to eradicate.

On the subject of the Native Americans, their suffering and the horrors inflicted on them are one of the least known aspects of the Revolutionary War. Many books tell of their attacks on colonial settlers, and there were such attacks and they were quite brutal affairs -such was local custom. However, few American history books relate how the Continental Army went on a punitive campaign against the American Indians, endeavoring to wipe them out completely, destroying everything they had, killing men, women and children alike and leaving nothing behind so that the survivors would starve or freeze to death. How many people know that the idealized George Washington, because of this campaign, was given a name by the Iroquois that meant, “Burner of Villages”? After Washington became the first President of the United States, for a long time many American Indians still used the term “Burner of Villages” as the title of every American President. Again, most American history does not talk too much about the part played by Native Americans at all, however, those that do try to play up the minority who allied with the Patriots or they, again, blame Indian atrocities on the British and paint the American Indians as being duped by more clever British officials into supporting their side. In fact, most Native Americans displayed a clear grasp of the political situation at the time and had for many years. They acted in their own rational self-interest which, unfortunately, meant choosing the side that was to lose. Just as in the French and Indian War they looked at the British who were sending over colonists and the French who mostly sent over Jesuits and fur traders and most decided it was in their best interest to side with France. In the Revolutionary War, even more looked at the colonies continuously reaching westward and the British Crown trying to keep them confined to the coastal region so as to avoid costly conflicts and quite logically sided with the British.

Unlike some monarchists, although my sympathies would unquestionably have been with the loyalists on July 4, 1776, I do not have the animus some do against the United States. It was a “revolution” in an academic sense only. Technically it was simply a war of secession. The “revolutionaries” won and yet the British government went on as before and King George III remained safely on his throne. I do, however, object to the way facts are glossed over (usually unpleasant ones) and the way the Revolutionary War and its main players have been so deified in the popular imagination. Many remark about how successful the United States was, growing and expanding and yet they fail to mention how this came about. There were certainly bitterly antagonistic political factions in the early republic (and still are) but the United States benefited immensely from what were rather cruel policies. The divisions that existed were differences of opinion between two varieties of liberals. The traditional conservatives, the loyalists, had all been driven from the country and that certainly makes government a great deal easier. Perhaps most significant though is the refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of the ideas and the fanaticism encouraged by the Revolution.

Many monarchists are quick to blame the French Revolution on the American Revolution. The ideas inspired it and the expense of French intervention caused it to this way of thinking. I, however, have never subscribed to that mentality. To me, this lets off far too easy those who actually rioted in the streets, who actually stormed the palaces, who actually voted for the revolution and who actually carried it all out. However, there is no question that the success of the American rebels helped to make revolution thinkable in France and the French Revolution had far more disastrous and long-term consequences than simply the division of the English-speaking world into two camps. There again though, to this very day, we see a refusal of people to face up to the responsibilities of the revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence that Americans celebrate on the Fourth of July could certainly be used by the revolutionaries in France to justify their grotesque behavior. Modern historians, however, praise the French Revolution for bringing food to the hungry and democracy to the disenfranchised (neither of which is true) while also acknowledging that this came at a terrible price in terms of human suffering, as though this were an entirely unavoidable consequence. Not true!

The Reign of Terror did not just happen, it was ordered. It did not have to happen, the King and Queen did not have to die and those who preached the principles of revolution and even those who embraced the Declaration of Independence in America should be made to accept responsibility for what their ideas caused. No revolution ever filled the stomach of a starving child. Killing the King and Queen of France put no bread on anyone’s table. Even if you believe that some of the ideals of the revolution were laudable, the revolution was not necessary to bring those about. There is every indication that King Louis was moving toward a more representative government anyway. Similarly, King George III did ultimately offer the American colonies autonomy within the British Empire, effectively dominion status as it would later be known, but was rejected. These people all could have remained loyal and worked within the system to achieve those goals that were just and reasonable. They chose not to, it was their decision and they are responsible for the consequences of  that, most of which have been very, very negative.

Texas Independence Day

It was on this day in 1836 that delegates meeting at Washington-on-the-Brazos officially declared the independence of the Republic of Texas. This action was taken in spite of the fact that, at the time, whether there would be any English-speaking population at all in Texas was highly in doubt. The army, such as it was, had largely melted away as different leaders led small bands off on their own independent campaigns, the largest force was in utter confusion at Goliad and the small band of men at the Alamo were besieged by vastly superior Mexican forces. The republican dictator of Mexico, Santa Anna, had made it abundantly clear that he would take no prisoners and show no mercy in this war. And it was a war he was, so far, clearly winning. However, despite winning every battle in 1836 save for the last, Santa Anna was eventually defeated at Texas independence secured. The fallen “Napoleon of the West” (as he fancied himself) was forced to recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, but of course the government in Mexico City quickly repudiated his right to do so and continued to claim Texas as their own despite never being able to recover the vast region.

This put the new Republic of Texas in a rather difficult diplomatic position as anyone who recognized the new country could expect to seriously irritate the Republic of Mexico. Of course, the United States was the first to recognize the Republic of Texas (many viewing this as simply one more step closer to the annexation they had planned for all along) and with the most powerful country in North America giving Texas her blessing many of the monarchies of Europe felt safe in doing the same. King Louis Philippe I of the French granted recognition (and you can still visit the old French legation in Austin), followed by King Leopold I of the Belgians and King Willem I of the Netherlands. The Republic of the Yucatan also recognized Texas, itself still struggling for independence from Mexico, a struggle they would eventually lose despite some daring victories on the part of the Republic of Texas Navy fighting in their service. The government of Queen Victoria did not officially grant recognition to Texas as they did not want to risk angering Mexico with whom they had extensive economic ties. However, in a move rather like those countries who deal with both Communist China and the Republic of China, the British effectively recognized Texas independence in all but name and still established diplomatic relations. The Texas embassy in London was not preserved, but it is still there, near St James’s Palace and adjacent a very colorful Texas-themed restaurant (Texas Embassy Cantina). In 1840 HH Pope Gregory XVI recognized Texas independence but no secular diplomatic relations were established between the republic and the Papal States.

As a new and still struggling country, the Republic of Texas was very grateful for this foreign recognition and displayed it in a number of ways. Murals dealing with the period frequently show the US, French, Belgian, Dutch and British flags in some way. These countries, whether the people were aware of it, then or now, were held in special favor by Texans for being the first to accept their hand of friendship in spite of the possibility of angering their former rulers. Texas established legations in Washington DC, London and Paris and despite the lack of formal recognition, the Republic of Texas was considered a potentially crucial ally for the British Empire. Fearful of the expanding power of the United States (which had invaded Canada in their last war) the British saw a strong and independent Texas as being of great benefit to the British Empire by blocking American moves farther south and west. Other European powers also saw the potential for Texas becoming a new third power in North America and took this into account with some of their colonization expeditions (as we have seen).

This put the British Empire firmly on the side (though they would never openly take a side of course) of the “independence” faction. The Republic of Texas never had any political parties, but from day one there were two clear factions; the “independence” faction led by Mirabeau Bonaparte Lamar who favored an independent and even expansionist Texas (the term “Texian Empire” was sometimes used but this was a reference to size and grandeur rather than actual form of government -sadly lol) and then there was the “annexation” faction led by Sam Houston who favored joining the United States and, indeed, viewed the entire existence of the Republic of Texas as simply a necessary step toward that ultimate goal. As we know, it was the annexationists who eventually won out, resulting in a disappointed British Empire, and a sharp but highly successful war between the United States and Mexico. However, it all started with that declaration of independence, signed in a very unimpressive little building lacking doors and windows, 175 years ago today. Happy Birthday Lone Star State!

Actual Mexican Independence Day

This is the day that, in the past (and perhaps a handfull of loyal souls today) Mexican monarchists celebrated their independence. It was on this day in 1821 that the "Army of the Three Guarantees" led by General Don Agustin de Iturbide rode in triumph into Mexico City. By happy coincidence this was also the birthday of the Libertador Iturbide. Victory arches were erected to celebrate the arrival of the army, pledged to unity, independence and religion. The following day the independence of the first Mexican Empire was declared and in due course General Iturbide became Emperor Agustin I, the first head of state of an independent Mexico. Although the memory of the great Mexican who actually delivered the independence so many others talked and squabbled about may be largely ignored or even sneered at today, he is a far more worthy champion to celebrate than the majority of others who are, most of whom were driven by hatred, foreign influences, jealousy and ambition. In honor of the occasion I offer my own alternative Grito somewhat different from that offered by President Calderon on 16 September.
Viva Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe!
Viva Independencia!
Viva Iturbide!
Viva el Gran Emperador!
Viva Mexico! Viva Mexico! Viva Mexico!

Independence Day

On this day in 1836 delegates from the colonies of Texas meeting at Washington-on-the-Brazos signed the declaration of the independence of the Republic of Texas from the government of Mexico. Among the reasons listed in the document for this action was the dictatorship of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (former traitor to both the King of Spain and first Mexican Emperor) who had abolished the constitution of 1824, the lack of public education, the lack of rights to trial by jury, the lack of rights to bear arms, the lack of freedom of religion and the forced union with the state of Coahuila. Texas would not win its independence for another month.

September 16: Mexican "Independence"

Last night at midnight President Felipe Calderon, reenacted the Grito de Dolores from the National Palace in Mexico City, ringing in September 16 in the fashion of Father Miguel Hidalgo the "Father of Independence" in 1810 when the long series of revolutions against Spain began. Watch the media and you will undoubtedly hear this referred to as Mexican Independence Day, but of course, that is a bit misleading considering that Padre Hidalgo uttered his cry in 1810 and Mexico did not become independent until more than ten years later in 1821 under the leadership of Don Agustin de Iturbide who became the first Emperor of Mexico. There is doubt as to whether or not Hidalgo even called for independence on September 16, 1810 though it is mostly agreed that he called for "death to the Spaniards".

Hidalgo, just to make the record clear, sparked a racial war when he called for the death of all people of European blood in Mexico. He was a Catholic priest who embraced the "Enlightenement" movement, denied the authority of the Pope, the virgin birth of Christ and clerical celibacy (he fathered 5 illegitimate children by two different women). When the bloodbath he unleashed provoked fear and retaliation on the part of Spain and the conservatives of Mexico he and his peasant army were defeated, Hidalgo was hauled before the inquisition, defrocked and he was executed by a Spanish firing squad. Contrast that with General Iturbide whose independence movement in 1820/21 was based on the three guarantees of "unity, independence and religion". Yet, as a monarchist, Emperor Iturbide has been considered politically incorrect throughout most of Mexican history and has been largely ignored by the general public while the more accepted radical Hidalgo is lionized and the date of his cry is the preeminent national holiday.

Most, however, have accepted this as one of the little quirks of Mexico and upon his arrival in Mexico even Emperor Maximilian reenacted the Grito de Dolores on September 16. Nonetheless, a few diehard monarchist conservatives in Mexico still let the day pass uncelebrated and wait until September 27 to have their own fiestas in recognition of the day that General Iturbide rode in triumph into Mexico City where he was hailed as Emperor.

Forgotten Yesterday

Yesterday, May 17, marked the anniversary of the restoration of the independence of Monaco in 1814 at the time under the reign of HSH Prince Honore IV. Monaco had fallen victim to the French revolutionary tide and had been annexed to France. It was not until the rise of Napoleon that the Grimaldis were able to see the restoration of their titles if not their sovereignty and several members of the Princely Family fought valiantly in the French Imperial Army just as they had previously done under Ancien Regime. Some might criticize this but surely anyone can see how hopeless it would have been to try to resist. After Napoleon's first abdication the Principality was in very real danger of being abolished altogether, however, they were saved when Prince Talleyrand managed to slip in a special clause in the Treaty of Paris to keep the principality in tact. When Napoleon attempted to restore himself during the famous "Hundred Days" Monaco was occupied by British troops which meant that the Grimaldis would play no part in the final act of the Napoleonic drama. On May 17, 1814 Prince Honore IV was formally restored as Sovereign Prince of an independent Monaco which he reigned over until 1819 when the throne passed to his son HSH Prince Honore V.