Story of Monarchy: The End of Afghanistan

As most readers of this weblog at least will probably know, Mohammed Zahir Shah was the last King of Afghanistan. He was a member of the Barakzai dynasty which had held power in Afghanistan since 1826 after the fall of the Durrani Empire. Chaos had ensued after the fall of the Durrani and Afghanistan fragmented into warring tribal factions, something which will sound familiar to people today. Out of that chaos arose Dost Mohammad Khan who made himself the Emir of Afghanistan. Later, he lost power as a result of the First Anglo-Afghan War but was later restored and his family would rule Afghanistan until the monarchy came to an end. The Emirate of Afghanistan became a kingdom under Amanullah Khan who took Afghanistan out of the British sphere of influence and tried to modernize the country only to be met with a civil war and be forced to flee the country, finding refuge, ironically enough in the British Empire of India. His son was likewise chased from the country though his successor was soon deposed as well, allowing for a return to some normalcy with the reign of King Mohammed Nadir Shah who came to power in 1929. He had British support but still faced opposition from radical tribal leaders, pressure from the Soviet Union and periodic rebellions. In 1933 he was assassinated which left the throne to his son, King Mohammed Zahir Shah.

King Zahir Shah

A highly educated man and forward thinking, his reign saw Afghanistan become a more well established country rather than just a war-torn backwater. Afghanistan joined the League of Nations, established diplomatic relations with the United States, had trade agreements with countries from Europe to the Empire of Japan and he gave assistance to the Muslim rebels attempting to establish an independent East Turkestan. However, these forces were defeated by the Republic of China whose forces massacred all the Afghan volunteers. Still, particularly after World War II ended, Afghanistan under the King continued to improve itself. The first university was established, a new constitution was enacted, genuine elections were held and the country became a functioning constitutional monarchy. Innovations included things like universal suffrage and even rights for women. Unfortunately, rival factions continued to be a problem and not just in the countryside but in the palace as well. Mohammed Daoud Khan, a cousin of the King, had served as Prime Minister in the 1950’s but his administration was a disaster and the King had dismissed him. Given what happened later, it is important to understand why.

Daoud Khan was an egotistical and extremely ambitious man who ended up being the ruination of his own country. Despite the fact that there was still a great deal of work to be done in his own country, he looked beyond Afghanistan and put progress there to the side while he pursued his dream of uniting all the Pashtun people into a larger Pashtun nation-state (the Pashtun being the dominant ethnic group of Afghanistan. However, there were a great many Pashtuns living in the still fairly young country of Pakistan and the Pashtun nationalism of Daoud Khan provided no small amount of antagonism to Pakistan. Never a wealthy country, Daoud Khan poured money into Pashtun militias on the Pakistani border and quarreled with Pakistan over where the border was. Pakistan cut off trade with Afghanistan as a result, leaving the Soviet Union as the sole source of economic support for the kingdom. The Soviets were, of course, more than happy to provide all sorts of support to Daoud Khan but at a heavy price of course with the result being the Afghanistan became more and more dependent on the Soviets and the Soviets became more demanding about having greater influence.

Daoud Khan

Fighting broke out between Afghanistan and Pakistan during this time and things did not go well for the Afghans. In addition, the economy was suffering and the non-Pashtun minorities were growing resentful and rebellious of the regime of Daoud Khan which was entirely Pashtun dominated. The King finally dismissed him in 1963 and tried to win back the support of the minorities by removing members of the Royal Family from the Council of Ministers with his new constitution. He also tried to reestablish good relations with Pakistan and, indeed, the border was reopened. However, Daoud Khan held a grudge and was determined to seize power again but next time he intended to do away with the monarchy completely so there would be no King who could remove him from office. It is also worth remembering that, even though they were never a majority, Daoud Khan had been supported durin his time in office by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, the communist party which was, of course, favored by the Soviets. They wanted to make Afghanistan a socialist state like the Soviet Union and were quite pleased to see the failed policies of Daoud Khan draw their country closer into the Soviet orbit.

The communist poison was sitting there in Afghanistan, almost unnoticed but certainly deadly and Daoud Khan would be their path to power even if he was too ignorant to realize it. As has almost invariably been the case in countries around the world, from Russia to China to Cambodia, it is not the communists who overthrow monarchies and seize power (they are usually not strong enough to) but rather some other, more moderate, regime that does so first. The communists then come in, sweep away this younger, weaker regime and take absolute power for themselves. Such was the case in Afghanistan. In truly cowardly fashion, Daoud Khan plotted his revenge against his cousin but did not take action against him in person. Rather, he waited until the King was far away in Italy having eye surgery in 1973 when he launched a palace coup. Daoud Khan seized power and for the first time in Afghan history, declared himself President rather than king and the country became the Republic of Afghanistan. He thought he had won and immediately consolidated his power, killing off potential rivals and establishing a single-party state ruled by the party he established of course, the National Revolutionary Party. All political opposition was persecuted and that included his former communist “friends” of the PDPA. Relations also cooled with the Soviet Union as Daoud Khan, anxious to be his own boss, sought economic ties with India and Iran and the Middle East rather than Soviet Russia. Needless to say, the communists were soon plotting his downfall.

PDPA flag

Old enemies also rose again such as Islamic fundamentalists who were given aid by Pakistan which had not forgotten how Daoud Khan had tormented them in the past. Also, despite his attempts to change direction from his more socialist past, nepotism and corruption were as widespread as before. The Soviets helped unite the communist subversives in Afghanistan around the PDPA (other than the Maoists) and in 1978 Daoud was assassinated in a communist coup that brought the PDPA to power. However, there were still deep divisions among the communists and chaos ensued with one faction overthrowing another. However, a socialist state was established, land reforms (as they were called) were enacted and state atheism was imposed on what was still a zealously Muslim country. Almost immediately there was an anti-communist resistance movement and the rulers called on the Soviet Union for help. Despite some initial reluctance, by the end of 1979 the USSR invaded Afghanistan to prop up the communist government. Most probably know what happened next. Soviet military power was able to hold the cities but the countryside remained dominated by anti-communist, mostly Islamist, guerilla forces support by funds and war materials from the United States. This soon brought about a stalemate and increasing frustration for the Soviets in a situation that resulted in many referring to Afghanistan as “Russia’s Vietnam”.

The exiled King Zahir Shah had been barred from the country by the PDPA and an Afghan civil war was the last thing he wanted to see. Nonetheless, during the Reagan administration he was sought out as an opposition leader and cautiously and tentatively agreed to become the leader of a government-in-exile for Afghanistan. However, this was something the most powerful rebel factions would not agree to as they were determined to have a theocratic republic rather than a monarchy and so the concept fell apart. By 1989 the last of the Soviet military forces left Afghanistan (in utter disgust and frustration) while in Afghanistan the fighting continued between the Afghans themselves. The King had little to nothing to do with Afghan politics during this time, though he was still a sufficiently contentious figure that he was nearly assassinated in 1991. Another government emerged but the country was still almost completely lawless and it was opposed by the Taliban militia that was supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In 1996 the Taliban secured control of most of the country though areas remained contested by the United Front opposition.

"Father of the Nation"

In 2001, after refusing to turn over Osama bin Laden, U.S. and allied forces invaded Afghanistan and destroyed the Taliban regime. Almost immediately there were calls for the restoration of the monarchy under former King Zahir Shah as the only man who could unite all Afghan people and who was not tainted by the long series of civil wars. However, the U.S. government opposed this, preferring the (supposedly) more pro-American Hamid Karzai to be President of Afghanistan. Yet, it seems the former monarch did not want the position in exactly that way anyway saying, “I will accept the responsibility of head of state if that is what the Loya Jirga demands of me, but I have no intention to restore the monarchy. I do not care about the title of king. The people call me Baba (a term for a respected elderly man) and I prefer this title”. So, when the new post-Taliban government was formed Hamid Karzai became President and he granted the former king the title “Father of the Nation” which was abolished after the King died in 2007. There are currently no major political parties or factions in Afghanistan calling for the restoration of the monarchy, some favor the current republican regime, most advocate for a more Islamist government and there is still the (Maoist) Communist Party ever ready to cause trouble. However, recently, Prince Nadir Naim has emerged as a possible contender for power, a former aid and grandson of the last King (the son of a daughter of his) who is attracting some attention and positive press. He is the first royal to official enter the political race since the downfall of the monarchy, is dismissed by some as an outsider but supported by others who see the end of the monarchy as the point when things started going wrong for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he has, as yet, not said that his goal is to restore the monarchy. He is running for President in the elections next year on a more general theme of national “restoration” as leader of the “Voice of the People” movement. He is also the nephew of Afghanistan’s first president, the one who overthrew his grandfather and ended the monarchy. Only time will tell how he fares in the chaotic world of Afghan politics.

Favorite Royal Images: Turkish-Indian Princess

Princess Niloufer Farhat Begum Sahiba

a relative (on her mother's side) of the Ottoman Imperial Family, she was the first wife of 

Prince Moazzam Jah, younger son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad in India

What the Pope Said

These days, whenever a Pope says anything not concerning God, Jesus or the Virgin Mary, I habitually begin to worry. In his recent papal ‘mission statement’ entitled “The Joy of the Gospel” Pope Francis has caused a number of people around the world to worry and opened a great deal of argument over what he was “really” saying. American right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh said the Pope was sounding like a Marxist, left-wing pundits have hailed him as the “OccuPope”. Some have worried that the Pope is calling for a world government by saying, “If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just a few.” Others are positively ecstatic that major changes are on the way with the Pope saying, “Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed.” Along the same lines he wrote, “I do not want a church concerned with being at the center and then ends up by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures.” On the left, many still frowned at his insistence that abortion is wrong and that women cannot be priests, though some did still see some hope in his calling for a greater role for women which, given what changes have already taken place, would be hard to define as anything but ordination since that is really all that is still denied them. Calls for a greater decentralization of the church was met with a more positive reaction all around (even the Protestants and Orthodox liked that part) as well as the Pope saying that the papacy itself might need to be reevaluated.

This is not the first time I have addressed this document, short and limited though that might have been, but I do have a problem with it and it is a problem that is quite common in papal documents of recent decades. First, however, I feel that I must defend, to some extent, some of the backlash over this which has upset some people. Mostly this has involved Catholics becoming upset with people on the political “right” for calling the Pope a Marxist or a socialist. I will defend them only in as much as anytime any Pope decides to address economics and economic policies it should be expected that there will be some controversy. A simple perusal of the internet will show left-wing outlets generally cheering the Pope for this document while right-wing outlets are critical of it or arguing that the Pope didn’t mean what everyone on the left thinks he meant. That gets to the root of my most basic problem with the document and much of what has come out of the Vatican in modern times. That is that, even while Pope Francis is often quite precise in his criticisms, on the whole it is so frustratingly vague as to be open to a wide variety of “interpretation”. For example, in decrying “inequality in society” the Pope writes, “This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root.” Well, pray tell Holy Father, what exactly do you mean by “socioeconomic system”? He speaks of “unjust social structures” without specifying what these social structures are or what should replace them. What is the “more efficient way” of the world interacting that is needed or being called for here?

He calls for the rich to help the poor but more than just calling for generosity he insists that governments must be involved in this. For myself, I found this rather at odds with his views on the Catholic Church itself. He seemed to be calling for a decentralization of the church but for greater centralization in government. In general, decentralization came about in governments because of a distrust of politicians whereas, in the Catholic Church, greater centralization was deemed only natural since the Pope was the Successor of St Peter and the one granted the gift of infallibility. This has been a bit difficult for your humble correspondent to wrap his damaged mind around. For example, in the United States, certainly since the Johnson administration, the government has taxed the rich and “given to the poor” in social programs more than ever before and yet poverty levels have only gone up. The Pope also calls on governments to provide all people with education and healthcare. Well, the U.S. is working on the healthcare bit right now (and being sued by the Catholic bishops over it) and as for education, again, the U.S. is spending more on education than ever before but with no improvement.

It is at times like these that I really miss the Papal States. After all, if the Pope still had an actual country to rule, with subjects to tax and an economy to regulate, we could see papal pronouncements put into effect. The Pope could actually lead by example. As it is now, with only Vatican City under his personal rule, I am told that comparisons to other (“real”) countries do not count. I was most vociferously told this when I pointed out that while Catholic bishops across Europe and North America decry border enforcement and efforts to control immigration, slipping into the Vatican without a ticket will lead to an altercation with a very large Swiss fellow holding a boarding pike. One cannot compare Vatican City to a “real” country. For example, the Pope condemns “unbridled consumerism”. Many news reports have translated that as “unbridled capitalism” and that could (or should) cause some confusion since I know of no place on earth where “unbridled capitalism” exists just as I have never known of a country on earth that ever practiced pure, total communism (though Pol Pot gave it a darn good try). However, again, that raises some questions which are left unanswered. How is consumerism to be bridled? How is a government to control what or how much people consume without infringing on their individual freedom which, lately anyway, the Catholic Church has upheld as something to be defended? We are given no explanation, no alternative model.

Historically, the Catholic Church has been a bit more specific as to the ideal “socioeconomic” system (if I can use that word even though I’m not sure what it means exactly and am unsure anyone else does either) but there is no consensus as to what exactly that was or if it was ever even really put into effect anywhere to be tried. Most agree that it involved some sort of revival of something like the guild system of the Middle Ages but, call it what you will, it became rather unpopular in the second half of the last century because so many who adopted it (or claimed to because, again, there is no consensus) were what most people today would label as “fascists” (Dollfuss, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar etc). Right or wrong that is the perception and so, especially since perception is reality more and more these days, it is mostly not talked about. You can put out statistics about what actually happened in those countries (unemployment levels dropping and trains running on time) but it won’t do much good because once the “f-word” is mentioned, all rational discussion grinds to an immediate halt. It seems quite a dilemma. If a pope is going to roll up his sleeves and get involved in critiquing economic policies, surely he should have a clearly defined alternative to offer or at least more specifics as to what exactly is good and what exactly is bad so that people are not just left arguing over what he “really” meant? After all, it would not be the first time that a papal foray into politics ended up not turning out so well. For example, when Pope Leo XIII called on French Catholics to embrace the republic, he did so while claiming to be a monarchist and insisting that French royalists could restore the monarchy democratically by playing ball with the republic. In hindsight, however, most took it as a papal blessing on republicanism and the effective end of the royalists as a political force in France.

Of course, gone are the days when popes defended Christian monarchy. The last time the Church actually defended an officially Catholic monarchy was in the final days of the Kingdom of Italy and that was a case of ‘too little, too late’ after decades of demonizing it at worst and ignoring it at best up until 1929. A republic took over and the Lateran Treaty started to be amended very quickly. Popes stopped having coronations, democracy is what Pope Francis speaks for (as did his immediate predecessors) and along with it multiculturalism and inter-religious dialogue are the new watchwords. In the few officially Catholic monarchies that remain, one would be led to believe that the Pope would not find much to admire about them. The Prince of Liechtenstein is rather well known around the world for his advocacy of less government and fewer regulations and the Prince of Monaco rules over a country with the greatest concentration of those terrible rich people in the whole world. Something else I noticed was the number of people rushing to point out, because of all the coverage of this in the American media, that this was not directed at the United States and Americans should stop thinking it is ‘all about them’. Which is true, though as best as I can recall, the United States was the only country mentioned by name in the document. So, there’s that.

I also could not help but noticing, in my perusal of the internet and what people were saying about this in the major publications and news sources in preparation for this was that everyone on the political left seemed overjoyed by it with just a few negative types mentioning that the Pope should practice what he preaches and have the Church start paying taxes and selling off the contents of the Vatican Museum (which I rather hate to mention for fear that he just might do it) while those on the political right were either opposed to what the Pope said, confused by it or were trying to defend it by basically saying he didn’t mean what everything thinks he meant. As I have said before, that alone should cause reasonable people to think a little harder. I have never known any religious leader who has had to have so many people rush out to interpret for everyone else what he “really” meant every time a statement or quote comes out. It is, however, quite difficult these days, especially when dealing with modern Christianity, to determine what is a “moral issue” and what is not, because, so many on both sides claim that every issue is related to every other issue and, in the end, it is all about morality any way you look at it. Border enforcement is a moral issue, healthcare is a moral issue, the debt is a moral issue, national security is a moral issue, foreign aid is a moral issue and so on. I will not try to categorize what the Pope said (I’ve made enough enemies already) but I will point out just a few statistics. In this papal mission statement the word “inequality” is mentioned ten times. The word “Heaven” is also mentioned ten times though eight of those were in quoting someone else. The Pope used the word “economy” twelve times and the word “economic” nineteen times. He used the word consumer or consumerism a total of eleven times while mentioning “marriage” three times and “abortion” only once.

Of course, I have not read every papal document from every pope in history and I know of no one who has, however, this struck me overall as being a very worldly document from a man who in this same document said, “God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!” And it is not as though this was a document intended to address some specific worldly problem (such as those of Pope Leo XIII on trade unions) but was released as a mission statement for the papacy of Francis yet it dwells (not entirely by any means) so much with the affairs of this world and not simply with spiritual matters but with economic ones. People who do not give to the poor are stealing from the poor, wealthy countries of the northern hemisphere are not doing enough to help the poorer countries of the southern hemisphere and so on. Which seems odd, to me at least, coming from the Pope but which, no matter how laudable, is rendered rather useless, again, by the total lack of specifics on what exactly to do about it. Is this really what the modern papacy has been reduced to, telling countries how to spend their money?

True, he mentioned a “more efficient way of interacting” for the countries of the world, but gave no clue as to what this way was or what vehicle could bring it about. Is it the United Nations? Is it some new international organization or global forum? We are not told. If I am seen as dwelling too excessively on this point it is only because of what I have witnessed firsthand. In the United States of America, for example, it is the Democrats, currently President Obama, who speak the most about inequality and social injustice and the need for the rich to “pay their fair share” and for the need for government to provide healthcare to all people. It is the Republicans who would say that less government regulation is the answer to these problems, that social welfare is being taken advantage of by fraudsters and that over taxing and regulating businesses (and the rich) only create more unemployment and thus more poor people for the Pope to embrace. In the last election, President Obama campaigned on providing “universal healthcare” and the U.S. Catholic bishops came out also in favor of “universal healthcare”. If you were to read the fine print you would see that the bishops did not officially endorse the plan of the President but they did call for universal healthcare and he was the only candidate promising to deliver it. Related or not, most American Catholics voted for Obama and the healthcare plan that was then passed directly attacked the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church such as in funding for abortion-inducing drugs and artificial birth control. So, vague calls for nice sounding things can have disastrous consequences when one ignores the details.

The specifically spiritual aspects of this document are ones that I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with, the political and economic aspects some people do have a problem with and they have not been bashful in voicing them or at least expressing confusion. My main point here is that this is to be expected. What stands out though is the reaction to this and I have been rather amazed at how hyper-sensitive many people have been to any disagreement with or even questions concerning Pope Francis. These people are told they are putting self interest before God (or as the Pope says, making an idol of money), that they have to choose between obedience to God (as represented by the Pope) or their own judgment on political or economic matters. It seems rather odd when it all springs from a document in which the Pope calls for, “Social dialogue as a contribution to peace, Dialogue between faith, reason and science, Ecumenical dialogue, Relations with Judaism, Interreligious dialogue and Social dialogue in a context of religious freedom”. That is an awful lot of “dialogue” going on in a document people react to challenges or questions over with ‘you worship your money, have turned your back on God and you’re going to Hell’ -or more subtle words to that effect. It seems a stretch to hold personal obedience to the Pope who talks about doing away with outdated customs, going out into the world and interacting and “dialoguing” with everyone to then react so harshly to those who disagree with the Pope on certain points. The Pope himself wrote, “Since I am called to put into practice what I ask of others, I too must think about a conversion of the papacy.” and that, “The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion.” He goes on to speak about Episcopal gatherings and the like but what exactly the papal conversion entails I cannot say as it is not expressed.

Given all of that, I am not the least bit surprised by the reaction this document has produced. It is critical of a great deal, inside the Catholic Church and outside of it yet rather vague when it comes to details, solutions or specific changes and that, it seems to me, is a sound recipe for controversy and confusion. This is something to be taken seriously because, for anyone who is a Catholic certainly, obedience to the Pope is not supposed to be an optional extra (assuming that is not included in the aspects of the papacy that need “conversion”). Traditionally, the teaching of the Catholic Church has been that obedience to the Pope is a necessary requirement for salvation and whether what he says falls under the (again, at this point rather vague) guidelines of what constitutes an infallible statement or not, what he says is supposed to carry immense weight and be taken very seriously. Given that, and given that what constitutes a “moral issue” is expanding into areas such as international relations and income inequality, the Church needs to take care to be just as specific about its pronouncements on those issues as it is on things like the sacraments, sin and salvation. Critics should calm down and read the document and ponder it before leaping to conclusions (the Pope also criticizes debt and dependency -which is usually left out) and at the same time, supporters of the Pope should not immediately jump on those who disagree with or question it. The Pope said he wanted a church that was “bruised, hurting and dirty”. Don’t be afraid of the “dirt” that comes from a little bit of debate.

Additional Note: One of the “danger” signs Catholics should have been alerted to about the Second Vatican Council was how it was so highly praised in the liberal, leftist, secularist elite media. Ever since then, people have been trying to explain away the guitars, altar girls and “clown masses” as being the result of “misinterpretation”. In all the research I did before writing this, I could not help but notice that the more leftist and the more traditionally anti-Catholic and anti-Christian in general the news source was, the more in love they were with Pope Francis. If Church documents and papal statements being misinterpreted is a problem, let me give this warning that what I heard, over and over again, based on this as well as the papal record so far is that politicians shouldn’t be denied communion for voting for abortion, that homosexuality is okay, free markets are terrible things and socialism is the answer because the rich are doomed to hell anyway because Jesus said so. That has been much of the take away from this and anytime there is a papal document that someone like former Obama White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe, Democrat Representative Keith Ellison (a Muslim) or Catholics like Ed Schultz and Michael Moore praise with such gusto -you might want to rethink your position.

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the land of the setting sun, HM King Juan Carlos was showing his humorous side even during the difficult times of his hip-replacement surgery. He told his doctor how he had played a practical joke on his doctors at La Zarzuela by putting bandages on and splashing his head with antiseptic and telling them he had fallen down again, just to see a second of a panic in their eyes before he started roaring with laughter. He also gave a shock to the wife of his surgeon (a Galician who resides primarily in Minnesota) when he called to talk to the doctor. His wife answered the phone and was rather shocked when the voice at the other end said, “This is the King. King Juan Carlos.” In the Low Countries, alarm was raised in Belgium when a Francophone daily received a letter threatening to kidnap Crown Princess Elisabeth. The issue is still being investigated by the author was enraged by the economic situation and blamed the problems on the growing Muslim and North African population in Belgium. The letter claimed that 30 billion euros a year were spent on foreigners and was addressed to King Philip saying “You and your government are doing nothing about this.” Security for the princess has been increased as a result. King Philip also apologized this week to the families of the victims of traffic accidents after granting royal pardons to a number of people of traffic-related offenses. Several pressure groups spoke of afterward in protest against this, saying the King was undermining traffic safety. And, in The Netherlands, there was a big celebration for the 200th anniversary of the Kingdom, marking 200 years since the soon-to-be King Willem I landed at Scheveningen on November 30, 1813. The Dutch government also passed legislation this week officially calling for Queen Maxima to assume the post of regent should (God forbid) anything happen to the King before the Crown Princess has reached her majority.

In Britain, Prince William seemed to be playing a lot of sports this week and Prince Harry continues his trek to the south pole. Princess Michael Kent (I do like her so) gave a rather humorous interview in which she talked about her new Cambridge neighbors at Kensington Palace, how her marriage had first been somewhat arranged by the late Lord Mountbatten and that she gave her husband a list of three suitable women she deemed worthy of marrying him if she is to predecease the Prince. In the formerly colonial world, a group of African tribesmen in Kenya presented a fatted calf to the British High Commissioner in honor of the birth of Prince George of Cambridge. The Duke and Duchess responded with a letter of thanks written in Swahili. It was also revealed this week that Duchess Catherine will be taking her mother along to help look after Prince George during their upcoming visit to Australia. And, on a similar note, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall both visited the Australia Exhibition this week. In other northern royal news, Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway were photographed for a charity’s Facebook page this week and the couple were all smiles, casting considerable doubt on the rumors last week that a royal separation was imminent. Also, our congratulations go to Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway who celebrated his 8th birthday on Tuesday. And, actually the week before last, the King of Sweden was in Kyoto, Japan for the Baden-Powell Fellowship and he seemed to have a great deal of fun with the local Boy Scouts. The King is the honorary Chairman of the World Scout Foundation.

In East Asia it was a very busy royal news week. TM the Emperor and Empress of Japan began their visit to India and it seems to be going very well with a majority of Indian papers coming out in favor of a closer relationship with Japan. On Saturday HIH Prince Akishino celebrated his 48th birthday and on Sunday HIH Princess Toshi celebrated her 12th birthday. In more troubling news, at the ceremony welcoming back Their Majesties from India, HIH Princess Akiko (daughter of the late HIH Prince Tomohito) fainted and, as a result, had to cancel a planned trip to Hawaii. In better news HIH Crown Princess Masako is said to be improving in her health and is taking on more official duties. HIH celebrates her 50th birthday today. And there was great celebration amidst the turmoil in the Kingdom of Thailand this week as the revered monarch, HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, celebrated his 86th birthday on Thursday. In his birthday remarks the King called for “calm and reason” amidst the protests that have been shaking the country. These, however, are not the sort of protests most are familiar with these days. Protestors are upset over efforts by the government to circumvent the law and have called for a larger role for the monarchy.

December 7 and the American Double-Standard with Japan

In writing this article, first let me state that today the United States and Japan are close friends and allies and I for one am very pleased about that. For the most part, both countries have gotten beyond the events of World War II and relatively few hold any grudges about it. This demonstrates a great deal of character and goodwill on the part of both countries. Unfortunately, despite the fact that none of what I shall relate in this article is anything less than documented, established fact, a great many still seem to have a very warped view regarding the war against Japan. In spite of all the evidence known even at the time of the war and other information which has been declassified since, many people in both the United States and Japan for that matter, continue to view the start of the war as being the result of Japanese aggression against the United States and nothing more. Some have even tried to twist the facts or simply fabricate their own in order to spread anti-Japanese bigotry to as many countries as possible. It is for that reason, and because truth is to be pursued for its own sake that I address this subject. I do so because I have touched on it a number of times in the past without ever giving a full explanation and I do so today simply because I enjoy offending people who are wrong. It is certainly not my intention to fuel any bad feelings between America and Japan. I wish nothing more sincerely than for the friendship between America and Japan to continue and would prefer that America was friends rather than enemies with all monarchies.

USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor

To start at the beginning of the war, even the most extreme depths of hatred and often unbridled racism against Japan on the part of the United States in World War II is usually forgiven because of the “treacherous” surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The problem with that scenario is the fact that Japan did not intend the attack to come without warning and indeed it was only incompetence on the part of the American government that prevented Pearl Harbor from being warned that an attack by Japan was expected. However, even that is rather disingenuous as the United States had not only planned and worked for quite some time to maneuver Japan into attacking American forces in the Far East or Pacific area but, in fact, had authorized a plan to attack Japan first. Never heard about that? It is true and has been declassified since the 1970’s, the order exists with the signature of President Roosevelt right on it. You have probably even seen at least some evidence of this, even if you do not realize it. For example, most people have probably seen the film, a Japanese and American co-production, about the attack on Pearl Harbor called, “Tora! Tora! Tora!”. If so, you will remember that on the morning of the attack the Japanese planes were picked up on radar but the officer on watch dismissed the report because it was assumed that the planes were a flight of B-17 “Flying Fortress” bombers coming in from the mainland. Those who have seen the movie will also recall the dramatic scene when these bombers arrived later, during the attack, unarmed and out of gas.

Why do I bring this up? Well, ask yourself a question; why were these land-based bombers being sent to Hawaii? They served no purpose in Hawaii but that was actually the first leg of their longer flight to U.S. bases in The Philippines. Why were they being sent to The Philippines and was that their final destination? Remember that the B-17 was a heavy, strategic bomber. Bombers are not defensive weapons, they are offensive weapons. You can defend yourself with fighter planes, you cannot defend yourself with bombers. All you can do with them is attack someone else. Who in the neighborhood of The Philippines would the United States want to attack other than Japan? Of course it was Japan and we have known since the order was declassified in the 1970’s (though it is still mostly unknown) that President Roosevelt had signed off on a plan to attach a bomber force to the American mercenary fighter group in the service of the Republic of China known as the “Flying Tigers”. The plan, JB-355, was for a first-strike against Japan by American pilots flying American bombers but under the flag of China for political cover that entailed the fire-bombing of Osaka, Tokyo and Nagasaki. It was authorized by the President five months before Pearl Harbor was attacked.

FDR

It should also be kept in mind that the Roosevelt administration was breaking American neutrality laws already by funding the American forces fighting for the Chinese against Japan. They were not really mercenaries at all since they were trained, armed, equipped and even paid by the U.S. government secretly while simply being listed as volunteers of the Chinese army of Chiang Kai-shek. Still, many would and have said that all of this was justified because the Japanese were the “bad guys” and “everyone knows that”. The same sentiment is used to justify the undeniable fact that President Roosevelt had maneuvered Japan into a position in which they would be forced to attack the United States. By cutting off all trade with Japan, including the export of iron and oil, persuading the British Empire and the Dutch government-in-exile to do the same, the United States effectively delivered an ultimatum to Japan: they could do nothing and suffer the total collapse of Japanese society for lack of the vital resources all industrialized countries require (and, indeed, Japan had only 18 months of oil left, in total by December of 1941), they could effectively surrender their sovereignty to the United States by giving up the right to manage their own affairs and allow America to dictate Japanese foreign policy or the Japanese could go to war with the United States. Obviously, only one outcome was in any way remotely possible. Again, however, even amongst the relatively few who are aware of these facts (and they are plain for all to see), some still try to justify it by claiming that the Japanese were “bad guys” who would have to be fought sooner or later, one way or another. Well, why was that?

Certainly the Empire of Japan had never attacked or threatened the United States or any part of the American “empire” in the Far East. What were they doing that so outraged the Roosevelt administration that war was the only option, even if America had to be the one to start it? The standard answer, of course, is that Japan had invaded China and the United States didn’t like that. Japan had set up the Empire of Manchukuo in Manchuria and restored the last Manchu Emperor to the throne there and had then gone on to fight Chinese republican forces south of the Great Wall in China proper. There were reasons and “incidents” behind every escalation of this conflict but we do not need to go into those now. The bottom line is that Japanese forces were in China and America did not like that (even though, at that point, China had not declared war on Japan and would not until after America and Britain did). It was an invasion of a sovereign country after all. Whether one thinks it was justified (as Japan did) or not (as America did) this is a fact. The problem with America being so offended by it and compelled to act against Japan because of it arises from another question one cannot help but ask; why was America not similarly prompted to action by other invasions in the East Asia area?

Bogd Khan of Mongolia

After the collapse of the Qing Empire in China both Tibet and Mongolia reasserted their independence. Mongolia had never been part of China after all. The Manchu Qing dynasty had gained control of Mongolia prior to taking over China and so, even while the Qing came to rule over all of China, Mongolia could more correctly be said to have belonged to Manchuria but never China. Besides which, it had been the United States, at least since the time of the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, that liked to talk about “self-determination” so, presumably, regardless of their prior relationship with China, the Mongolians could declare independence if they wanted to. However, in 1919 the Republic of China sent troops into Mongolia, seized power and deposed the reigning monarch; the Bogd Khan. No one seemed to care in America. The only one who did care was the rogue White Russian general Baron von Ungern-Sternberg who drove out the Chinese and restored the Bogd Khan to his throne in 1921. However, his forces were soon driven out by the Soviet Red Army that took control of Mongolia and made it a part of the Soviet Union in all but name. Again, no one in America seemed to care.

Some may be wondering what any of this has to do with the matter at hand. It matters because American security or interests were no more threatened by the invasion of Manchuria or China than the invasion of Mongolia. Why was it wrong for Japan to invade China but okay for China to invade Mongolia and then for Soviet Russia to invade Mongolia? Is it only wrong if the country is big enough? Is it only wrong if there are large populations which equate to lucrative markets for foreign businesses at risk? And if Japan was “invading China” by occupying Manchuria because Manchuria had been part of the Qing Empire, why did Roosevelt not condemn Soviet Russia for “invading China” by occupying Mongolia which had also been part of the Qing Empire or when the Soviets invaded Xinjiang in 1934 which had been part of the Qing Empire and is still part of China today? Why the blatant double-standard? Of course, one could also ask why the Soviet attack on Finland was okay or the Soviet occupation and annexation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and eastern Poland was okay but an, as yet, undeclared war between Japan and the Republic of China demanded that America take action, freeze Japanese assets, cut of all trade with Japan, ban Japanese ships from the Panama Canal and even plan to fire-bomb three Japanese cities to start a war. Yes, I think one can very well see that the Empire of Japan was being held to a very different standard from other countries in the neighborhood.

Tokyo -when it did happen

It is rather interesting to just take a look at the text of both the American declaration of war against Japan and the much more lengthy Japanese declaration of war against America. The justifications put forward by the United States, that, “the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:” is a total lie. It has been a matter of public record since the McCollum memo was first widely publicized in 2001 that the Roosevelt administration was doing everything it could to provoke an act of war by Japan against the United States. And even if one disregards the memo, the same President who denounced the “dastardly and unprovoked attack” on Pearl Harbor was also the President who months earlier had signed off on the fire-bombing of several major Japanese cities with the stated intention of causing as much death and destruction as possible. Keep that comparison in mind; fire-bombing major, heavily populated cities versus the attack on Pearl Harbor in which great care was taken so that no civilian areas or targets were hit. Again, that is a matter of public record that has never been in dispute. For the United States to say the attack on Pearl Harbor was “unprovoked” is nothing short of an outright lie.

In comparison, the Japanese declaration of war relates a lengthy list of provocations by the United States and Great Britain (and most of what Britain did was done at the insistence of the United States, in fact going all the way back to the breaking off of the British-Japanese alliance) which are all perfectly true and, again, not in dispute. Japan mentions British and American support for the Republic of China that was waging war against Japan (which also violated U.S. neutrality laws), the build-up of American military forces in East Asia and the severance of all trade with Japan by America and Britain. All perfectly true. Just consider the situation for a moment. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor the U.S. President had authorized and paid for American pilots and American fighter planes to be sent to China to fight against the Japanese, the Allies were sending 10,000 tons of supplies to the Chinese every month through French Indochina and finally had frozen all Japanese assets in the United States, cut off all trade with Japan and banned Japanese ships from the Panama Canal. Would anyone call these the acts of a neutral or indifferent power?

Chinese Republican troops

Also remember that, at that time, about the only sources of oil exports in the world were the United States, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and Malaysia and the Gulf States which were all under the control of Britain. When the U.S. cut off all oil exports to Japan and persuaded Britain and the Dutch to do the same, this cut off all oil entirely. Can anyone imagine, even with the more diverse sources of energy and greater number of oil producing countries in the world today, just what sort of social and economic collapse would befall a country like the United States if, for example, just the countries of the Middle East decided to cut off all oil exports? It would be nothing short of disastrous and this was exactly the situation that Japan was facing. Likewise, other justifications for American actions do not stand up to scrutiny either. For example, the occupation of bases in French Indochina is often cited as a reason for America to take action against Japan. The problem with that is that it was done with the consent of the French government in Vichy. Aha! I know some are already shouting that this was the terrible, collaborationist government that was pro-Nazi and completely illegitimate. Unfortunately, regardless of how good or bad the Vichy regime was, at that time, the United States itself still recognized it as the legitimate government of France. So try again. In that case, there is the accusation that Japan was simply keeping bad company by having joined the Rome-Berlin Axis with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The problem with that argument is this; guess who was the biggest supporter of those heroic “freedom fighters” of the Republic of China prior to Japan joining the Axis? Go ahead, guess. Give up? It was Nazi Germany of course. Before the outbreak of war more than half of all armaments exported from Nazi Germany went to the nationalists of the Republic of China and Nazi Germany had, for years, been helping China industrialize and modernize their army.

The President who wanted war

So, again, we come down to a blatant double-standard concerning the Empire of Japan. If being friendly with Germany was a crime, why was it not for China? If the occupation of Manchuria was an invasion of China, why wasn’t the Soviet invasion of Mongolia and Xinjiang not treated the same? Given that America was sending military forces to aid the Chinese, diverting long-rang bombers to within striking distance of the Japanese mainland, cutting off all vital resources to Japan and funding those who were waging war against Japan, how can anyone honestly say that the attack on Pearl Harbor was “unprovoked”? And, I will repeat, none of these facts are in dispute. The sanctions against Japan can be found in any history book as can the history of the American volunteers in China. The order for the fire-bombing of Japan before the two countries were at war was declassified and is now a matter of public record. This is not, furthermore, an attempt to whitewash history. Many terrible things happened during the war that are inexcusable. However, it is a matter of fact that the undeclared war between Japan and certain factions of the Republic of China became part of a world war spreading across the whole of East Asia and the South Pacific because of the actions and desires of the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and not those of the Empire of Japan.

Arguing with Canadian Republicans

In June 2013, I wrote an article entitled “Arguing with Australian Republicans” and with only two words of alteration, the same opening lines can be used for this article. Republicans are quite a nonsensical bunch no matter where in the world you find them and those infecting the great country of Canada are certainly no different. Their arguments are so full of holes and lack any credibility to such a great extent that they have so far been unsuccessful in their treasonous efforts in spite of having virtually the entire mainstream media, political establishment and university system all helping them push their agenda. Of course, the traitor crowd in Canada has not even managed to get as far as their fellow traitors in Australia but, because of all the powerful institutions mentioned, they continue to get far more attention than they deserve and so their ridiculous carping is a near constant irritant. Now, I am sure some may dispute me that all of these elite bodies are pushing republicanism but they are, they are just not always overt about it.

For example, not all professors in Canadian universities are actively trying to convert their students into being good, little republicans but they are certainly not teaching them about the Canadian constitutional monarchy or instilling in them a proper understanding of and loyalty to the Canadian Crown. As for the media, despite the fact that none of the major Canadian political parties embrace the cause of republicanism, despite the fact that no poll has ever shown a majority of Canadians to favor republicanism and in spite of the fact that sufficient public support for a republic has never been gained to even hold a referendum on the subject, the CBC continues to give air-time to Canadian republicans virtually every time a royal event is covered. And this bias reaches across the political spectrum. For example, one of the most famous (or infamous) “right-wing” Canadian media personalities, Ezra Levant, on October 29, 2013, told an American guest that one of the things he most admired about the United States was that Americans are “revolutionary in spirit”. This was on a segment discussing merging the USA and Canada into one country and never once did Levant say that Canada was a constitutional monarchy and that was preferable to being a republic with America. The CBC to Levant basically covers the left/right divide in the Canadian media. As for the political establishment, the instances of outspoken loyalty to the Crown have been relatively few.

Yet, Canadian republicans are, thankfully, a rather inept bunch and were it not for the woefully inadequate public education concerning the monarchy, they would almost certainly have no support at all. Their own arguments frequently contradict each other. They claim, for example, that none of the royal safeguards, royal titles, royal treaties or anything at all would be changed if Canada became a republic because Canada is a republic already in all but name yet, they still say it is vital that Canada become a republic in name as well. So they are at the same time arguing that the Canadian monarchy has absolutely nothing to do with Canada these days but that it is somehow still damaging enough to need to be abolished. Have they never stopped to ask themselves how an institution can be doing a disservice to Canada when they are the ones claiming it does not serve at all? A close look at their arguments shows almost nothing but a long list of everything that would NOT change if Canada became a republic and yet they still try to persuade that changing Canada into a republic is absolutely vital. It is truly astonishing that absolutely anyone with their faculties in order could ever be taken in by such a cause. However, again, as with republicans everywhere, when common sense fails they do not hesitate to resort to outright lies.

To demonstrate this, I shall respond to some of the posted “Frequently Asked Questions” on the website of the most prominent Canadian republican organization. Their very first “question” is a lie itself. “If Canada ends its constitutional connection to the British monarchy, doesn’t that mean we’d become a republic?” Their answer is “yes” but that this would only accomplish in name what already exists in fact, so, again, one would be tempted to ask, “then what’s the point?” right out of the gate -and this is only the first question mind you. However, the lie is in the question itself as technically (and they do like to get technical, so I will as well) Canada already ended its constitutional connection to the British monarchy. There is now a Canadian monarchy that is legally a totally separate entity from the British monarchy. First question, first lie.

Second question, “Wouldn’t we end up being a republic like the United States?” to which the Canadian republicans reply “no”, basically saying that they would probably be a parliamentary republic rather than a presidential republic like the United States. However, if Canada became a republic it would be a republic “like the United States” in that both would be republics. In fact, Canada would be more like the USA than any other republic because both Canada and the United States started out the same way, only becoming separate countries because the American revolutionary forces were defeated during the American War for Independence when they invaded Canada. The American “Founding Fathers” originally intended their new country to include all of the British Empire in North America, Canada included, but Canada resisted and when peace was secured the current division between Canada and the United States was first drawn. The fundamental difference between the USA and Canada is the monarchy. Other than that, most Americans and Canadians wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, speak the same language, listen to the same music, watch the same TV shows and movies, drive the same cars, have many of the same political arguments from environmental protection to abortion. Both countries sprang from the same root and both now have an equally diverse population representing various ethnicities and religions and so on. The only reason Canada and the USA are not the same country already is because colonial America rebelled against the King while colonial Canada remained loyal.

The third question asks, “Is it true that if we end the monarchy we’d have to rename the Mounties and lose all our other royal patronages?” to which the republicans answer, “Absolutely not. The criteria for the title “Royal” includes no reference to removing it if a country transitions from monarchy to republic. Ireland has been a republic for over sixty years and has many institutions with royal patronages.” Which is true, but this is not a case of republican honesty so much as an illustration of how republicans want to turn the whole of Canada into a lie. It is true, they would not have to rename the “Royal Canadian Mounted Police” if Canada became a republic just as it is true that they could choose to rename them the “Imperial Canadian Mounted Police” even though there is no “Emperor of Canada” which would make about as much sense as calling them “Royal” when Canada has no Royal Family. Do you see how absurd these people are? Are you starting to see a pattern here? The very next question & answer assures people that Canada would not have to leave the Commonwealth if they became a republic. That is true, though I wish it were not, but do you see the common theme here? So they want Canada to be a republic but not a republic like the United States, they want to keep their royal titles and royal patronages and they want to stay in the Commonwealth of which HM the Queen is the “head”. Do they have any idea how ridiculous they sound?

Another question asks about the monarchy providing stability. These oh-so “honest” republicans respond by pointing to revolts, plots and revolutions Britain has had over the centuries, the Irish problem and the upcoming vote on “independence” for Scotland. They also point out that Canada almost broke up as a monarchy, referring, I assume, to the secession vote in Quebec. Well, yes, congratulations republicans, no country is immune from treason and internal conflict as your very presence demonstrates that every barrel has some bad apples. However, perhaps a little perspective might be in order. Monarchies may not be free from internal conflict, but history has proven that republics are better at setting people to killing each other by far. The American Civil War remains the bloodiest war ever fought in the western hemisphere of the world -and that was in the republic that has worked better and survived longer than most any other in history. Russia had internal strife as an empire but nothing so bloody and brutal as the civil war following the downfall of the monarchy. France had civil wars as a kingdom but nothing close to the Reign of Terror that followed the Revolution, to say nothing of the massacres that followed it in royalist parts of the country.

There are a number of questions trying to explain away the lack of public outcry over the monarchy but it is the answer to the last question, basically, “why bother?” that displays yet another republican contradiction. They say, “Admittedly, for as long as there’s been monarchy, there have been those who oppose it for its inegalitarian and undemocratic nature. But now, Canadians are increasingly realizing that a country that has rejected titles and aristocracy many decades ago, and which triumphs merit over bloodline, deserves to have the same values mirrored in the highest office of the land.” Yet, in their own second question about becoming “like the United States” they themselves say about a Canadian President that, “Contrary to popular belief, the position need not be political or popularly elected.” So it seems they cannot even make up their own mind whether a democratically elected head of state is a good thing or not. They do not want an unelected monarch as head of state because they value democracy but at the same time they do want an unelected president as head of state because democracy makes things political.

Aside from all of that though, when you hear these traitors being interviewed or debated, they invariably fall back on the old whine that the monarchy is a hold-over from the colonial past, from the days of the British Empire and it prevents Canada from being viewed as a “real” country. As if the foundational institution of a country should be determined based on what the neighbors will think. Frankly, the only thing I see detrimental to Canada being considered a “real” country is dimwits like these republicans and the influence they have already had on the Canadian public. Even as it stands now, the Canadian monarchy is one of the few things that makes it clear Canada is a different country from the United States. However, when I am tempted to take Canadian nationhood less than seriously it is because of things like scrapping the national flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, in favor of a new, more “inclusive” model. Real countries are proud of their history, heritage and symbols and do not discard them for being ‘behind the times’. I am tempted to take Canada less than seriously when celebrated journalists like Diane Francis write books about why Canada should merge with the United States. Real countries do not want to become another country. I am tempted to take Canada less seriously when a Canadian says what they are most proud of about Canada is their respect for human rights and multiculturalism, in other words, the value of having no values. Ask an American, even when the party they oppose is in power, what they are most proud of about their country, and they will usually say “our form of government” which they think is the best in the world. If Canadians would say the same it would do more for their “image” than becoming just another republic.

Guest Article: A Case for a Canadian House of Lords

(the following was written by guest contributor Alberta Royalist)

Continuing from before, the problems with the Canadian Senate date back to its very inception by the Father's of Confederation, who chose to adopt a mixed form of government, combining elements from both the British and US systems of government. This naturally made sense for the most part, as it would be quite impractical to adopt what was then a British centralized government, for a country as vast as Canada.

However in the context of the Federal Upper House, this resulted in a chamber that resembled the U.S. Senate, but with a British House of Lords influence in that its members would be appointed for life. Also like in the British House of Lords, Senators would be appointed from the upper class and serve as a sort of non-hereditary nobility, who would apply the brakes when needed on bad legislation originating from the mob-appointed (I mean democratically elected) Canadian House of Commons. Indeed a residuary feature of this is the requirement that Senators own $4,000 worth of land in the province they are supposed to represent, and another $4,000 above any debt or liabilities they might have.

Unfortunately the end result was that the Senate combined the worst elements of both the British and American upper chambers, without any of the benefits. For as I said before, Senators were beholden to the prime minister and to a lesser extent, the political party who appointed them, but at least they were able to exercise greater independence with the passage of time. However with the adoption of the lie that only the Commons held genuine legitimacy because of its election by the mob (sorry the people), coupled with the so-called reform of 1965 which forced senators to retire at 75, the Senate had become largely irreverent, and no longer does the job for which it was intended.

Nevertheless the desire of the Canadian founding fathers for a chamber "of second sober thought", to counteract the mob mentality of the House of Commons and autocratic prime ministers, is just as relevant, if not more so today than it was at the creation of the country in 1867. However in the case of the upper federal chamber, we must totally abandon any influence from the American Senate which is even more useless today than it was at its inception, and embrace for our inspiration the legacy of that most venerable of institutions, the British House of Lords; by replacing the Senate with a Canadian House of Lords.

However we must avoid a major flaw of the pre-1911 British upper house, namely the right of the sovereign to theoretically appoint an unlimited number of peers to sit in the House of Lords, which despicable politicians exploited as a Trojan house to first undermine and then destroy the traditional House of Lords, starting in 1832 but brought to fulfillment in 1911, 1949, and 1999; thereby not only changing the British upper house into today's abominable parody of its former self, that serves as a largely useless check against autocratic prime ministers, and the ever increasing usurpations of national sovereignty from the EU.

I thus propose as a solution to this problem that we Canadians take for our inspiration, the British Acts of Union of 1707 & 1801 to create peerages for each of the ten provinces and the three territories, whose members would be appointed by the governor general, from a list of say, three candidates for each peerage, drawn up by the respective lieutenant governors who would be consulted in turn, by an advisory council. Taking as our inspiration the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada, these "peerage advisory councils" if you will, would comprise the senior judges, clerks of the privy councils, chancellors of the major universities, and the heads of the heritage, culture and arts councils in each of the provinces and territories; charged with compiling a list of candidates for each seat in the peerage; based on a criteria of exceptional service or merit performed for their province in areas like science or the arts for example, or through their actions, have repeatedly demonstrated high standards of military or civilian service.

However the Governor General would still required the consultation of Her Majesty before each appointment, and she would be able to overrule the governor general and appoint a different candidate if she desired. Naturally this process would be free from interference from the politicians, meaning the premiers and the prime minister would have no say in the process, with the Queen and her viceregal representatives free to act at their own discretion.

Naturally these peers would be hereditary, with the automatic right to sit in the newly established Chamber of Peers, that would comprise the new upper chamber in each of the provincial and territorial legislatures, with the method of hereditary succession conforming with salic law, unless exempted by Her Majesty. However learning from the lesson of history, there would be a maximum number of peers in each province and territory of say fifty, with the creation of a new peerage conditional upon the extinction of an existing one. Once created, the peers in the provinces and territories would meet to elect from among themselves, representative peers to sit in the Canadian House of Lords, with each province entitled to ten seats in the upper house save for tiny P.E.I (Prince Edward Island) which would have three, while each of the territories would have five; resulting in a House of Lords comprised of 108 members, which is slightly larger then the current senate. A major advantage of this composition, would be to prevent the largest provinces of Ontario and Quebec from dominating the Upper House, as they currently do in the Senate.

Upon their election these representative peers would, in addition to their original peerage, be automatically elevated to the Peerage of Canada, with the Governor General free to determine the rank and precedent of  the ennobled, with the option of elevating their dignity at a late date. However unlike their provincial and territorial counterpart, the Canadian peerage would be for life and not hereditary, but with no imposed mandatory retirement age in contrast to the current Senate.

The benefits of having a Canadian peerage and a House of Lords are obvious, but to sum up again, its members would no longer be lackeys of whatever prime minister was in power, thereby greatly reducing his already enormous power, while serving as a check on the mob elected Commons, and reducing the number of bad and irresponsible bills that become law. Likewise despite being appointed by the monarch, these peers would far more likely owe their appointment to merit rather than the sort of cynical patronage that we currently observe with senators. At the same time, the far more stringent requirements for selection, nomination, and appointment as peers, compared with the current process for senators, would reduce the likelihood of celebrities and political cronies being appointed, as wealth, fame and close association with the prime minister and his political party, would not be enough to secure an appointment.

But most crucially of all, the hereditary nature of their position means that peers would not owe their position to wealthy corporate or individual backers, or be subject to the power of party whips, thereby making it possible for them act independently and vote according to their conscience. Likewise by virtue of the hereditary principle, these peers could give their sons, cousins or nearest family relative, lifelong training for the job, which would make them far more qualified and competent at doing their job, than present day senators. This coupled with liberation from fear of being removed by mandatory retirement, and from fear arising from the "democratic legitimacy" mentality; means that peers would weld their power for more effectively at keeping the premiers and prime minister, along with the lower chambers at the federal, provincial and territorial level in check, than the poor imitation senators ever could.

It is my contention that by looking though history we see time and time again, a remedy to our political woes, rather than striving to keep reinventing the wheel every time and making a terrible hash at it, and the fact is the British House of Lords worked very effectively for centuries, before it was ruined by self-serving politicians, and with a few corrections and some tailoring to meet our Canadian requirements, there is no reason why this same principle cannot work just as well in guarding our liberties, as it did our ancestors. Likewise it is learning from the lessons of history that has made me a reactionary, a patriot Anglo-Canadian and above all, a proud Alberta Royalist.

Guest Article: The Problem with the Canadian Senate

(The following was written by guest contributor Alberta Royalist)

Earlier this month the Senate voted for the first time in more than a hundred years to suspend three of its members for the rest of the current session, as they had been caught claiming for fraudulent travel and accommodation expenses. However the media controversy here caused by the 'Senate Expenses Scandal, has brought forth renewed calls from many quarters to either reform or repeal the Senate, with PM Stephen Harper filing a request from the Supreme Court to see how far he can alter the upper chamber, without having to court a majority backing from the provinces. Although as the court is well known for not being in much of a rush to decide anything, it'll likely be a few years before it gets back to him.

Of course here in the Great White North, Stephen Harper is well known for his desire to have an elected Senate like the United States, saying in a speech at the Australian Parliament a couple of years ago: "The mandate to govern when it is given directly by the people is a great honour and a great responsibility," going on to say: "It's the very essence of responsible government and it is the minimum condition of 21st-century democracy."

However jumping firmly on the abolition bandwagon, yesterday the Saskatchewan Legislature passed a symbolic motion calling for the outright abolition of the Senate altogether, with Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall saying in reaction: "Canada can be fine without a Senate. Six provinces have moved away from their own provincial senates and their democracies have thrived. They've been able to provide good government and that will be true for Canada."

As far as yours truly is concerned, after taking a look at the stellar example of the US Senate, which is controlled by special interest groups who spend vast sums of money on securing the election of their candidates; whose members connive with the courts and the federal government to erode states rights more and more, and whose current structure deprives the states of any participation in the federal government; you can hardly be surprised that I oppose the Prime Minister's efforts to bring the same to Canada.

However I'm sure it will come as a surprise to know that I also fully support the abolition of the Canadian Senate, as I believe it is a broken institution that is beyond repair. As the title suggests, the problem with the Senate is that owing to a combination of an erroneous assumption and total domination by the prime minister, the Upper Chamber is like frail, old, toothless old pet that needs putting out of it's misery. For all of its members are nominated by the prime minister, with the Governor-General acting to rubber stamp every nomination; even though on paper the viceregal incumbent is supposed to be answerable to Her Majesty the Queen...

Naturally this results in Senators being old cronies of the incumbent prime minister, be they party bigwigs, the rich and influential who need a favor returned, and of course this being Canada; washed up celebrities whose appointment is deemed to help make the prime minister look 'cool' with the voters, its that shameless. Of course this is why Stephen Harper has been trying very hard to deflect the blame from the current Senate scandal away from him, as the three suspended senators were very close to him in one form or another, which is obviously very embarrassing to the Right Honourable Prime Minister, which is why the Senate voted the recent suspensions only after pressure had been applied from the PM, and why the PM has suddenly made Senate reform such an urgent priority again, after putting it on the back burner for quite a while, then again it might well just be cynicism on my part...

Likewise in theory the Senate is supposed to enjoy equal powers to the nominally Lower Chamber the House of Commons, with the same right to table, amend and veto any bill it sees fit. However the erroneous belief that legitimacy is bestowed by the people at elections has become a well established facet of Canadian politics, as well as the Senate being an appointed body staffed by the PM's lackeys, means that the upper chamber very rarely veto bills coming from the Commons, a chamber which coincidentally, that is also controlled by the government...

Now what might surprise some readers of this blog, is that I too support the abolition of the Senate, however unlike other advocates of this move, I support it's replacement with an altogether different Upper House. For we need a second chamber to subject legislation to additional scrutiny, with the power to amend, or veto it as necessary. For failure to replace the upper chamber would result in this Dominion adopting at the federal level, the sort democratic dictatorship already prevalent at the provincial level. Consequently the Prime Minister would be even more powerful that at present, for without the check of a second chamber, it would be even easier for him to pass whatever bill he likes into law, with disastrous consequences to personal liberty. Likewise a government controlled single chamber Parliament, would pass even more poorly worded and ill thought out Bills into law, thereby creating more havoc for the country, resulting in Parliament needing to go to the trouble of revising or repeal such legislation more frequently; a process which would be greatly mitigated with a powerful and independent second chamber.

So having the established the problems with the existing Senate, and the greater ill's that would entail from abolishing it without a suitable replacement, I shall present my reactionary solution to the troubled Upper House of the Canadian Parliament in my next article.

Monarchist Quote

"As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the ‘veiled treason’ which attempts, by sordid means and mercenary proffers, to lure our people from their allegiance."
-Sir John A. MacDonald, Prime Minister of Canada, 1891

Royal News Roundup

Starting in Spain, a little cuteness proved a good cure as Princesses Leonor and Sofia visited their recovering grandfather in the hospital, there for a four-day stay to undergo hip surgery. Not long after HM the King was released, joking with reporters that he was “bad, very bad” but later, in all seriousness, saying that everything went phenomenally well. The King is back at home now while the Prince of the Asturias made a lightning visit to Brazil after leaving the United States and while HM Queen Sofia tried to break the cuteness meter herself in an encounter with a panda cub. Moving to the Low Countries, in Luxembourg this week Grand Duke Henri met with members of the coalition set to form the next government. Among the items on their agenda is to separate church and state in Luxembourg, removing religion from the schools, changing the funding of religious groups and replacing the traditional Te Deum on National Day with a secular ceremony. In Belgian royal news, Princess Astrid and other government officials were in India this week where they attended a special ceremony honoring the victims of the 26/11 terrorist attack. For the Dutch, TM King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima visited Venezuela, meeting with President Nicolas Maduro amidst anti-government protests following the arrest in the night of a key opposition leader. What was the funniest thing about the trip? The ignorance of the mainstream media of course as the AFP referred to the Queen being from “nearby” Argentina. Yes, Argentina is “nearby” Venezuela in the same way that Alaska is on the same continent as Mexico.

In British royal news, Prince Harry is making slow progress on his Antarctic trek, being snowed in (what a surprise). Prince William sang a duet with Taylor Swift (the most charitable member of the American music industry) and Jon Bon Jovi (who has some people grow grapes at one of his mansions so he can collect a farm subsidy from American taxpayers) and joined with the Prince of Wales to condemn poaching. The antics of anti-British Argentina gained some headlines this week as the tantrum-prone republic threatened to arrest anyone they can get their hands on engaged in oil exploration in or around the Falkland Islands. Argentina would be wiser to simply stall for time. The way the British military is being reduced, in the near future the U.K. will be totally unable to defend the islands any longer without the agreement of the European Union and that sort of cooperation will probably not be forthcoming. What would be my solution you ask? For Britain to leave the EU, become a haven for all the money-makers being taxed and regulated out of Europe, rebuild the Royal Navy and settle the issue with Argentina once and for all with their choice of the easy way or the hard way. That, of course, is unlikely to happen. In other news, HM the Queen unveiled new Diamond Jubilee windows and Guildhall and handed an OBE to raunchy x-rated author Jackie Collins. Nice to see a knighthood still means something. And in the Scandinavian monarchies it has really been a rough week with not much good news to be had. The Danes are still enduring gasps of shock at a Royal Family portrait that looks like a horror movie poster (and yes, I didn’t believe the hype either until I actually saw it and yes it really is that bad and yes “The Omen” did come to mind). In Sweden Prince Carl Philip was hit by a bus, doing little to no harm to the royal thankfully but crunching up his Porsche pretty badly and in Norway Crown Princess Mette-Marit sold some of her clothes on-line for charity. However, the news there was rather overshadowed by rumors that the Crown Princess and Crown Prince Haakon may be on the verge of separation. Of course, these are just rumors and nothing more and the Palace will not comment on them. Still, be they true or be they lies, it is not good to hear.

Moving on to the Middle East, word came out this week that the music loving Sultan of Qaboos (who travels with his own orchestra) was the man behind the recent agreement between the United States and Iran, being the one who first arranged for the Americans and Iranians to start talking to each other for the first time since the Revolution and the hostage crisis. Meanwhile, Kuwait is trying to ease tensions between two other monarchies in the region, Qatar and Saudi Arabia over the problematic republic of Egypt. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia cheered the military overthrow of President Morsi in July while the Emirate of Qatar, which had heavily subsidized Morsi, saw its influence evaporate when the military took charge. Saudi Arabia is also upset with support from Qatar for the Muslim Brotherhood, fearing that their brand of populist Islamic revolution could unseat the reigning monarchies of the region. Kuwait is apparently acting as a go-between to ease the tensions between Qatar and the Saudis. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also been more and more unhappy with the United States lately, first over Syria (where the Saudis strongly supported action against the Assad regime) and over the deal with Iran. White House sources say President Obama called the Saudi King as soon as the deal was made in an effort to reassure him -which I doubt accomplished much.

In East Asia, tensions were on the rise this week in the Kingdom of Thailand as anti-government (pro-monarchy) protestors took to the streets in demonstrations against the lady Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, leader of the Pheu Thai Party and brother to deposed former PM and convicted criminal Thaksin Shinawatra who was ousted by the army and fled the country to avoid going to jail. Outrage mounted over a failed effort to pass an amnesty bill that would have allowed the former PM (leader of the red shirts) to return to Thailand without being held accountable for his crimes. There have also been accusations that Thaksin is still pulling the strings of the current government from afar and previous efforts at an amnesty bill have been perceived as simply attempts to do whatever it takes to get Thaksin cleared, returned to Thailand and restored to power. Meanwhile, in northeast Asia, HM the Emperor of Japan received rice from Hirono in Fukushima prefecture which will be served at dining halls and imperial residences to help reassure people of the safety of products from the region where local farmers have been struggling due to fears stemming from the tsunami-hit nuclear plant. Rice was first sent to the Prime Minister and government agencies and HM the Emperor is quoted as saying, “We want to have some too, because the rice must have been grown with great effort.” Plans are also underway for the upcoming imperial visit to India, the first such trip for an Emperor of Japan. Indo-Japanese ties have been increasing in recent years and Japan is the largest source of foreign aid to India. This can also be seen in the context of Japan reaching out to many south and southeast Asian countries in response to increased hostility from mainland China, threats from North Korea and an uncooperative South Korea. Japan is also deeply concerned over the “air identification zone” declared by Red China over a vast track of the China Sea, including the Japanese Senkaku Islands. Japan, South Korea and the United States have said they consider this move invalid and provocative and will not recognize the Chinese claims, although in a rather contradictory move, the U.S. State Department has urged commercial American airliners to comply with Chinese demands.