Tuesday, March 29, 2011

A Note on Libya

As we seem to now be in something the President will not dare call a "war" with Libya, I thought I might, perhaps, comment on the recent turn of events. Frankly, I am not optimistic. These days any royal restoration will be a long-shot but, while I may have been slightly optimistic at the outset I am much less so now. The rebellion did start in the area with the strongest Senussi support, the royal flag did reappear and rebels were holding pictures of King Idris -all very good signs. They were advancing constantly and seemed on the brink of taking Tripoli and toppling the illegitimate Qaddahfi regime. However, they were then beaten back, almost to where they started from, before the international community could stir itself to get involved -and then only in half-measures.

Had the rebels been able to rush to success quickly and on their own I think there might have been at least a fair chance of a restoration. However, as that did not happen, various disreputable groups have now attached themselves to the rebel cause and the UN and NATO have gotten involved. There is always hope, and even if there is only the slightest chance of a restoration under the rebels that will still be more of a chance than existed under Qaddafhi -a man who betrayed his monarch and who cannot meet a sorry end fast enough for me. However, whenever the UN, the USA, France & sadly the UK get involved what hope I had for a royal restoration mostly evaporated. It does not help my opinion that the leading 'hawk' on this issue for the USA is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whose husband's administration famously said on the issue of Eastern Europe, "We don't do kings".

Some UN-lovers out there (why they would be reading this blog I don't know) might point to the case of Cambodia but that was a totally different kettle of fish from Libya. In that case you had a former monarch still alive and engaged in the process and one who had clearly shown a talent for survival few politicians could ever match. You also had a country where the monarchy had been long established before the communist takeover whereas in Libya the monarchy barely had a chance to firmly establish itself between the time that the Allies ripped Libya away from the Italians and when the treasonous Colonel Qaddafhi overthrew his lawful king. To reiterate, I continue to hope for the Colonel to meet an ugly demise, however, I am much less optimistic than I ever was for the succeeding regime to be much better. Some would surely cry "imperialism" if ground troops are deployed but, frankly, I have never considered that a bad word and Libya would probably be better off if that were actually the case -but it is not. Unfortunately, with Obama and the European ruling clique in charge of things I cannot realistically see much improvement on the horizon for Libya other than the possibility of being rid of the bizarre, butcherous presence of Qaddafhi.

At least Switzerland will finally be able to sleep soundly once again...


  1. The problem is, as I’ve said before, Ideology. We live in an Ideological world, in which the accepted Narrative (and I insist that its actually a Religious conviction at this point) is that Democracy is the same thing as Freedom and is the only Legitimate Governmental Form. Even the Uk boasts of no longer allowing Hereditary peers in and some in the Lords call it “Strange” or “Bizarre” that 92 Remain.

    Under this guise, even though History, especially Recent History, have shown that Revolutions usually end in Tyranny, the Story about Revolutions leading to Democracy and thus to Justice, Peace, and prosperity is still the prevailing one.

    Naturally they are simply acting as actors in a play that they think is Scripted toward that end, that we both know won’t work.

  2. Well then, people need to get a clue that no form of government ever devised on earth can give you freedom. They can take it away (any of them) but the only thing that can provide freedom is "independence" and that is what is in short supply in these modern times of bigger, centralizing governments and internationalism. Even Voltaire warned against democracy, so did America's Founders. Get a clue people!!!

  3. You obviously need to watch more of both Glenn beck and Keith Olbermann. While they are on opposite ends of the Political Spectrum, both of them buy into he core Liberalism and the Whig Revised History.

    Today’s History is that Voltaire wanted Democracy, and America’s Founding Fathers stood for Democracy. Didn’t you know that?

    Just like the Crusades prove how awful Christianity is because its Christians who marched into peaceful Muslim Lands to offer them the choice between Conversion or Death and took over for power or wealth, and the Emperor Constantine created the Catholic Church and went against Jesus by merging Church and State. This was the Start of the Holy Roman Empire.

    Oh and don’t forget that God hates Monarchy. Not that it matters as we need a Secular State.

    Oh and did you know that freedom means, as the Woman who renounced Christianity for Atheism in Paul, the movie about an Alien, Freedom is all about Drinking, Cursing, and Fornicating.

    And I’m sure Americas Founders agreed as they were all Deists who hated Christianity with a Passion… Or is it that they were Devout Christians who based Americas Constitution on the Bible, esp. the Book of Deuteronomy?

    Ah well…

    The point is, to them Democracy is Freedom and Governments do Grant Rights. They don’t stop and think that they don’t. They don’t get that Freedom is not the same thing as being able to line up at a ballot, or worse, get money from Taxpayers.

    Many think if we live in a Monarchy all our Guns will be confiscated and Freedom of Press, Speech, and Assembly suppressed, because somehow all Monarchies do that and all Democracies let us be free. They really don’t think why this is, and don’t question this assumption. They just go with the story, and the Story is that Monarchies are Tyrannies and Democracy is Freedom.

  4. Oh no I don't! I'm hanging by a thread as it is. I could probably handle Beck a little more than Olberman though -he's not even funny accidentally.

    One of these days I really need to get around to posting on how to refute those Christians who think God is a republican.

  5. Zarove, you echo my sentiments exactly! The more I see what sort of tripe and rhetoric passes for history these days, the more I am convinced Napoleon was right when he said that history is just the lies that are agreed upon!

    And MM, I would eagerly await your refutation of "God is a Republican" Christians. I live among many of their most ardent radicals (family included). And, while I myself no longer fall for such a blatant misinterpretation, I also have minimal skill in refuting it. I would like to see how you answer them, and perchance learn some tactics from you.

  6. MM - on regards to God as being a republican, one need only ask - who's His competition? To actually nominate someone is idolatry (Thou shalt have no other gods before me), and to suggest He has none means He's a hypocrite (and hypocrites got more than a few stern words from Jesus).

    How simple things can be with a single, simple question.

  7. I need to stop putting that off. All it takes is a little Bible-reading and the understanding of "balance", as in, not using one scripture to contradict the other but taking all of them as truth and using them to balance each other. I will try to get on that.

  8. In the meantime, I can point you toward the Christian monarchy button on the side bar, there you will find some posts dealing with the subject with Biblical sources for backup.

  9. No, the Clintons do not do kings, sir. They do interns. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

  10. In nature, there are two types of animal, solitary and social.
    Human is an example of social “animal”; bear is an example of solitary animal.
    For a community can exist, each member of the community must give up some of their rights for sake of the community, this is the foundation of obligation (duty).
    Most great religions try to balance between one’s duties and rights; although what you are doing doesn’t hurt anyone but if it can lead to social (religious) disharmony, then your action is considered wrong. (the root of the concept of sin or taboo).
    Early liberals understood this, after all freedom for them meant that you could do what you ought to do rather than you could do what you wanted to do.
    Unfortunately, with the advent of secularism, liberal philosophy degrades into the latter meaning.
    If the trend continues, I am afraid the modern concept of freedom (I want to do whatever I like, I can be anyone I desire, etc) can lead to social – solitary paradox. By this time, human will be nothing more than a group of bears currently still able to tolerate each other due to the abundance of resources (just like salmon season in Kodiak Island).
    In my opinion, modern concept of freedom will be proven as the antecedence of anarchy. Therefore, for me rather than being, God sent; secular liberalism (and socialism) is truly Devil sent.

    Nb: another fallacy of the republican: we can “easily” change bad president, unlike bad monarch. My advise, say that to Gadaffi.
    : the former meaning of freedom is also quite tricky, because it depends solely on the wisdom of the individuals. (a monkey will never except the truth that “the other monkey” on the mirror is himself).

  11. Ignatius, I believe you are correct. Mr Baltzersen, you get the 'one liner' prize -lol'd on that one.

  12. Always happy to provide a good laugh for a fellow monarchist, sir.

    And happy too to provide good, humorous twists to anti-monarchist slogans.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...