Showing posts with label radical islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radical islam. Show all posts

Monday, January 9, 2017

Revolution in the Dutch East Indies

Not everyone may know it now, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands was once a major power. After winning independence from Spain (the dominant military power of the day) in a very long war, the Dutch fought off the French, won wars against England and established themselves as a major player in Europe. Long a powerhouse in business and world trade, the Dutch built an empire that stretched from the Americas to South Africa to India and East Asia. It was, however, in Southeast Asia that the crown jewel of the Dutch empire rested, their largest colony by far and the one which was the most productive, contributing a huge percentage of the overall economy of the Netherlands. That colony was, of course, the Dutch East Indies, known today as the Republic of Indonesia, a vast archipelago of thousands of islands that is about as far from one end to the other as the continental United States. For more than three hundred years the Dutch East Indies belonged to the Netherlands, a princely republic and later a very business-minded, Protestant monarchy reigning over a huge territory of disparate Islamic principalities and some of the most abundant natural resources to be found anywhere in the world.

KNIL troops in Java, World War II
There were conflicts, of course, in the establishment of this colony and the occasional unrest but none of it was very serious, certainly nothing that the small but very professional Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (KNIL) could not handle. An anti-Dutch nationalist movement had been on the rise, but it seemed to be dealt with easily enough and its leader, Sukarno, was captured and incarcerated. Even when World War II erupted in Europe, not much changed in the Dutch East Indies. After an heroic but futile four-day fight the Netherlands was conquered by Germany and the Dutch Royal Family was forced to flee to England. However, the stout-hearted and determined Queen Wilhelmina continued to preside over her government-in-exile and the Dutch East Indies contributed as much as possible to the Allied war effort against Nazi Germany. When the United States of America placed sanctions on the Empire of Japan, including an oil embargo when America had been the primary provider of oil to the Japanese, the British Empire did the same. The Dutch government, likewise informed the Japanese that they could expect no oil from the Dutch East Indies. Their homeland was under occupation by Japan’s Nazi ally and the Dutch stressed that all of their resources were needed for their own struggle to liberate the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Japanese troops in the Dutch East Indies
Not long after, in a major offensive kicked off by the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the Japanese launched an ingenious, multi-stage offensive across Southeast Asia. Despite more heroic but futile resistance, the Dutch naval forces and the Dutch colonial army was defeated and the Dutch East Indies came under Japanese occupation. All White people were immediately placed in concentration camps, as were most of the sizeable minority of mixed-race people and any natives who opposed or were expected to oppose Japanese rule were either killed or confined. The anti-Dutch dissident Sukarno was released from his prison and became a willing collaborator of the Japanese. There was talk of absorbing other surrounding territories, particularly British Malaysia, to create a “Greater Indonesia” but the Japanese had no intention of allowing the Dutch East Indies to become independent. The whole point of the invasion was to secure control for Japan of a source of resources and raw materials that no foreign power could withhold from them. It was then, only after Japan had clearly lost the war and the atomic bomb had already been dropped on Hiroshima, that Japan authorized Sukarno to declare independence. It was a final, parting shot at the hated Europeans to make a restoration of Dutch rule as difficult as possible. In that regard, it more or less worked as planned.

Sukarno
The Dutch had previously always been on friendly terms with Japan. In fact, during the long years of Japanese isolation, the Dutch were the only western power to have any contact with Japan at all. When the war was over, the Dutch asked the Japanese military to remain in place to keep order in the colony until they could return. The Japanese did stay until Allied forces arrived but they gave many of their weapons to the anti-Dutch Indonesian dissidents and thousands of Japanese stayed behind rather than return home to carry on their war against the Whites in Asia. Sukarno had also been busy, trying to set up a government of his own, growing out of a committee the Japanese had allowed him to form during the war. It was this body which declared that the Indonesian Republic would include not only the Dutch East Indies but British North Borneo, the Malay Peninsula and Portuguese Timor as well. It would have a dictatorial president and, although Sukarno wanted a secular and unitary state, he later conceded to the powerful Islamic clerics of the country to state that the new country would be based on submission to Allah and would require all Muslims to obey Shariah law (or syariah law in the local tongue).

Mohammad Hatta
There were divisions, Sukarno wanted a unitary state while his deputy, Mohammad Hatta, favored a federal system. Nonetheless, they were united in what they were against and Sukarno simplified his position and his proposed republic by basing it on five principles; Islam, humanitarianism, national unity, democracy and social justice (as he defined them of course). This, of course, will sound all too familiar to people today. You have a Marxist-socialist revolutionary, making concessions to Islam, talking about democracy which he has no intention of actually enacting, national unity but only for those of his own nationality, humanitarianism while carrying out horrific atrocities and the catch phrase so popular with today’s progressives, “social justice” which, then as now, came down to a war against anything White, western, Christian or traditional. No doubt the “social justice warriors” of today would look on the Indonesian revolutionaries with their coalition of socialists and Islamists as their beloved ideological forefathers. This was though, it must be said, also the start of a struggle within Indonesia between the more secular nationalists and the Islamic fundamentalists which is still going on today.

Queen Wilhelmina
So it was that by the time the Dutch were ready to return to their colony, Indonesia had already declared independence, already had a political platform, a flag and national anthem and even aspirations for territorial conquest. HM Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands, certainly had no intention of giving an inch of this. She was extremely determined that any concession would be a betrayal of all they had fought and suffered for during the war. She wanted to fight for the full restoration of the Dutch empire and regarded Sukarno and his regime as traitors who had collaborated with foreign invaders and perpetrators of a race war. However, having just emerged from the ruin of World War II, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was hardly in a condition to make an immediate and robust response to this outbreak of revolution in the colonies. Worse, her Allies were far from united or in agreement as to what their reaction would be. The United States had, under President Roosevelt, taken a very hostile attitude to all colonial empires during the war and while it was certainly in the interests of the British who wished to maintain their own empire, also recently decimated by the Japanese in East Asia, to support the Dutch, they were in hardly better condition to offer much support. The Dutch, with a depleted, bombed-out country of their own and “friends” who were either opposed or indifferent to their reclaiming their lost empire faced a huge territory with a large population full of revolutionary fervor ready to fight them using any tactics necessary.

The Dutch were pressured then, both by the situation and their own allies, to come to some sort of a negotiated peace with the Indonesian republicans. This was not the first choice of the Queen, but it seemed the only option available. While Allied, mostly British Imperial, forces landed to disarm the Japanese and liberated the Europeans being held in concentration camps, the Indonesian revolutionaries prepared to resist them, wrongly fearing that they were determined to restore Dutch rule. In the meantime, republican officials were parceled out among the islands to enact the dictates of the revolutionary government. The local Indonesian princes mostly came under extreme pressure if not outright attack either for having collaborated with the Dutch previously or for collaborating with the Japanese more recently. Young people ran rampant, fired by the revolutionary rhetoric of the republicans, led by Sukarno who blasted the native princes for stunting their country with “feudalism” and thus allowing the Dutch to gain control and rule the islands for the last three centuries. Law and order quickly broke down and chaos ensued as different factions and different ethnic groups pursued different goals.

Flag of the Japanese sponsored PETA
There were Marxist radicals, separatists, Islamic fundamentalists and more moderate leftists all jockeying for position. The revolutionaries were, however, aided by the fact that since the Japanese had first broken Dutch rule, most did not want to see it return. Not everyone was opposed to maintaining some sort of connection with the Netherlands but a reactionary return to the former colonial regime as it was seemed completely beyond the realm of possibility. That this would be a vicious fight was made clear early on when violence broke out in Surabaya in East Java, between Indonesian republicans (along with remnants of the Islamic militia force formed by Japan, PETA) and occupying British forces on October 28, 1945. From November 10-24 this escalated to an all out battle and what would be the bloodiest single fight of the entire revolutionary war. The British won the battle but, in what would become an all too familiar pattern, were horrified by the cost and determined that the Dutch cause was hopeless. Thereafter, rather than stand by their Dutch ally, the British would likewise support the republicans in the United Nations.

The republicans began forming a more formal government, though none tended to last very long and Sukarno remained the real power and driving force of the revolutionary movement. The Dutch were convinced that they would have to come to some sort of agreement and the British brokered the Linggajati Agreement between them and the Indonesians. The agreement went into effect on November 12, 1946 and stipulated that the Dutch government would recognize republican rule over Java and Sumatra while the eastern archipelago would be retained and all would remain under the Dutch Crown. There would be a federal system for the islands with the Republic of the United States of Indonesia (RUSI) including Java and Sumatra of course as well as southern Kalimantan and the “Great East” of Sulawesi, Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands and West New Guinea. The revolutionaries did not ratify this agreement until March of 1947 and neither they nor the Dutch were satisfied with it when it was signed on May 25, which of course the British took as proof that it was actually perfectly fair and reasonable. It was, however, destined to fall apart very quickly.

Dutch royal troops of the first police action
Revolutionaries had been fired by radical zeal and a compromise solution was not what they had been prepared for. Within hardly a month the republicans committed numerous violations of the agreement and the Royal Dutch government, frustrated with the whole affair, decided that it would take a taste of battle to set things in order. On July 21, 1947 the Dutch launched a “police action” (“Politionele Acties” as the Dutch called it) named Operation Product. The Royal Netherlands military had to rebuild their colonial forces from scratch since they had been completely dismantled by the Japanese but, nonetheless, they fought with skill and determination. Royal Dutch troops drove the republicans out of Sumatra, then East and West Java, finally confining them to the central Yogyakarta region of the island of Java. The action had been quite successful but rather than congratulations on their victory, the Dutch were denounced by the new international community represented by the United Nations. More negotiations were organized, this time held aboard an American warship, and these resulted in the Renville Agreement, agreed to on January 17, 1948. This agreement recognized Dutch control over the territory taken by their forces but only until a vote could be held to determine whether the populace wished to remain under the jurisdiction of the Netherlands or the Indonesian republic.

Dutch military column, first police action
This time, certainly, the Dutch had more cause for discontent with the agreement than the republicans. They had fought a hard campaign and been immensely successful, only to be told their gains would likely be taken away as soon as it could be organized. Meanwhile, the revolutionaries had been knocked down hard by this defeat and seemed to be coming apart at the seams. In 1948 part of western Java broke away under the leadership of Islamic radicals, declaring itself the Indonesian Islamic State (doesn’t that sound familiar too?) or as it was more commonly known, Darul Islam. This separatist Islamic theocracy would continue to bedevil the Indonesian authorities until its founder was finally captured and promptly executed by the republicans in 1962. There were other divisions too such as one faction led by the throwback anti-colonial dissident of a bygone era Musso of the PKI and a Trotskyite faction led by Tan Malaka. In what was called the Madiun Affair, for its location in East Java, a communist insurgency broke out that called for the people to overthrow the republican government as well as the Dutch. None of these ultimately succeeded, Musso being killed and Tan Malaka later being executed by republican forces in February of 1949. However, it made the United States very nervous about the communists gaining a foothold in Indonesia and increasingly put pressure on the Dutch to make an accommodation with Sukarno who, the Americans were convinced, could be kept on the side of the non-communist western camp.

General Simon Spoor
The Royal Dutch military forces, however, were not about to give up while the work of centuries was falling into chaos. The Queen of the Netherlands was fortunate to have a very tough and talented commander of her forces in the East Indies in the person of General Simon Hendrik Spoor, a World War II veteran who had worked closely with General Douglas MacArthur and rather took the “American Caesar” as his example. Originally a colonel, Spoor was given the temporary rank of lieutenant general when he was given command of the Royal Dutch Army in the East Indies. He was a man of seemingly boundless optimism, for whom no task was too great and his first ‘police action’ against the republicans had been very successful. Many did not know, because of the immense confidence he displayed and the great care he took of his soldiers, just how much stress was heaped on the workaholic general. The only real criticism of General Spoor was his efforts to suppress news of atrocities committed by Dutch forces under his command. Such things did happen, though none were officially sanctioned of course, but these were widely used for propaganda purposes by the revolutionaries and were taken up by communist forces in the international community. They never told, of course, that these were prompted by acts of torture and mutilation carried out by the republicans against the Dutch and Dutch-allied native forces. General Spoor was simply concerned with not providing the enemy with such ammunition and protecting the integrity of the Royal Netherlands Armed Forces.

KNIL forces on parade ground
General Spoor, and the other Dutch authorities, could see the international elites aligning against them, they knew they were in an extremely difficult position but they also knew that success on their ground would counteract more of this pressure than anything else could. As such, the Dutch launched a second ‘police action’ in December of 1948 codenamed “Operation Kraai”. General Spoor had excellent intelligence on the enemy thanks to the breaking of the republicans’ secret code which revealed both their military and diplomatic plans. Once again, the focus was on Java and Sumatra, where the “head” of the revolutionary movement was located. The object was to force the republicans to accept the compromise proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands which would preserve the federal system and keep the East Indies under the overall reign of the Dutch Crown. The operation began with a formal announcement by the local Dutch civil authorities that, as the republicans had violated the Renville Agreement, the Netherlands forces were no longer bound by it. General Spoor launched a complex, integrated attack on the leadership centers of the revolutionary movement using land, air and airborne forces.

KNIL troops in the jungle
The republican leadership based at Yogyakarta was the primary target and General Spoor thought that the revolutionaries would throw everything they had into the fight. However, he was surprised by how little resistance they ultimately offered, quickly retreating in the face of the determined Dutch offensive. They would resort to guerilla warfare, something Spoor never wanted to consider. However, once again, the Royal Dutch military operation was well-planned and hugely successful. Yogyakarta was captured on December 19, 1948 and very soon both Sukarno and his deputy Hatta were captured and exiled to northern Sumatra or the island of Bangka. It was the second time Sukarno had been apprehended by Dutch authorities (the first being prior to the Japanese attack in World War II) and the revolutionary republic was effectively decapitated by this victorious operation. The republicans quickly cobbled together an emergency government in western Sumatra but their entire operation was in disarray, their forces were defeated and smashed and the Netherlands forces seemed to have accomplished all of their goals of the operation.

Unfortunately, and to the great frustration of Queen Wilhelmina and the Dutch authorities, at this moment of triumph, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was effectively undermined by the international community, including their own allies. The British had already turned against them, recently independent Asian countries such as India aligned against them and finally the United States also condemned the Dutch military action. Needless to say the Soviet Union and Communist countries were always opposed to the Dutch and the continuation of any colonial regime. In January of 1949 the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding that the Dutch give up the gains of their victory and allow the reinstatement of the republican government. Pressure was also put on the Dutch to renounce any and all sovereignty over the Indonesian archipelago by July 1, 1950 including the threat of losing Marshall Aid for the Netherlands if they did not. In effect, the UN was coming out against the compromise proposed by the Netherlands and endorsing the Dutch simply handing the Indonesian republicans everything they wanted in spite of having beaten them in the field.

Flag of the Indonesian Republic
The Dutch had little choice, in the face of the opposition of the international community, but to give in. From August 23 to November 2, 1949 talks, known as the “Round Table Conference” were held in The Hague to hammer out the details for the transfer of power between the Indonesian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Indonesian federal states established by the Dutch in the aftermath of their successful police actions. The Dutch authorities agreed to recognize the independence of the “Republic of the United States of Indonesia”, to withdraw all Dutch military forces and to the holding of elections for an Indonesian Constituent Assembly. West New Guinea, or Netherlands New Guinea, remained under Dutch control although the republicans never relented in claiming it as part of their “Greater Indonesia”. The republicans agreed to pay 4.3 billion guilders of the sizeable debt owed to The Netherlands though this was far from the total amount. On December 27, 1949 the Kingdom of the Netherlands officially transferred sovereignty to the Indonesian republic.

Queen Juliana at her inauguration
This would not, however, be presided over by Queen Wilhelmina who, despite wishing to reign until 1950, had grown increasingly ill and increasingly frustrated at the loss of the Dutch East Indies. The Queen abdicated on September 4, 1948 to be succeeded by her daughter Queen Juliana. It was left to her to formally acknowledge Indonesian independence though the Dutch still hoped to maintain a close relationship with at least the more loyal portions of their former colony. The RUSI, under its constitution at the time of independence, consisted of the Republic of Indonesia plus the fifteen “united states” established by the Dutch and which they were closest with. The Dutch government had ensured that these states would, according to the constitution, have a more equal standing with the much more heavily populated republican territories and thus could influence the new regime in a more friendly direction for the Netherlands or at least for those fifteen states. However, this was not to be as Sukarno quickly made use of his “emergency powers” to dissolve the federal system bit by bit and take control of all of these areas, incorporating them into the Republic of Indonesia as the unitary state he had wanted all along. By May of 1950 the last of these states were gone and the Republic of Indonesia stood alone as one, united, top-down government ruled from Jakarta.

One of the most famous events which led to Sukarno taking emergency authoritarian measures was an attempted coup by Captain Raymond Paul Pierre “The Turk” Westerling, a former Dutch colonial army officer and expert in anti-guerilla warfare in January of 1950. He was backed not only by Dutch loyalists but also by certain powerful Indonesians who wanted to preserve the federal system to maintain greater autonomy for the local authorities, the most notable being Sultan Hamid II of Pontianak, himself also a former officer of the Royal Netherlands Indies Army (KNIL). One of the last areas of resistance was Ambon where, in April of 1950, the Republic of South Maluku was declared. The Ambonese were a rather unique ethnic group in Indonesia with many Christians and a history of friendship with the Dutch. The Ambonese had formed a large part of the mostly native KNIL. By November the authorities had succeeded in suppressing them after which 12,000 Ambonese soldiers, along with their families, were forced to flee to the Netherlands where they established a relatively short-lived government-in-exile.

Flag of Netherlands New Guinea
The only holdout then was Netherlands New Guinea which remained a Dutch colony and was intended to provide a safe haven for the Christian, pro-Dutch population, particularly the large number of mixed-race Eurasians who faced persecution at the hands of the Islamic nationalist revolutionary republicans, for either their race or, if they were Christians, for their religion. This ‘last stand’ of the Dutch in Indonesia lasted until 1962 when Indonesian military forces began to move in following the announcement that a local government would be established. Once again, although the Dutch and especially the locals in West New Guinea were prepared to defend themselves, the international community closed ranks against the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the United States, John F. Kennedy was President, a long-time admirer of the socialist Sukarno, and he sent his brother to basically threaten the Dutch with economic catastrophe if they did not immediately surrender and abandon Netherlands New Guinea to Indonesia. The territory was handed over to the UN which duly transferred it to Indonesia. There was a plebiscite, much later, after the authorities had time to consolidate, intimidate and indoctrinate which, of course, showed a result in favor of the Republic of Indonesia. This “Act of Free Choice” was known as the “Act of No Choice” by the locals and was so flagrantly unfair that even the international community had to protest but, of course, nothing was done about it.

British troops at the Battle of Surabaya
What is most remarkable about what is now known as the Indonesian Revolution is just how successful the Dutch were yet they ultimately lost everything because of the pressure of the international community, in particular the United Nations. The whole affair revealed just how disunited the western powers were compared to the communist bloc which, while they often agreed on little between themselves, were certainly in agreement when it came to who they opposed and any western, Christian or colonial power was always to be opposed. The Dutch were sold out by their own allies. The British jumped first, believing after the Battle of Surabaya that the whole affair was hopeless, plus they shifted radically to the left immediately after the end of World War II and were determined to surrender their own empire while the United States displayed a very inconsistent and naïve policy in regard to the Dutch East Indies. They effectively backed a regime led by a man who had collaborated with Japan and the Axis powers in World War II simply because colonialism had become very unfashionable and they thought they could win over Sukarno to the side of the anti-communist countries if they backed him in supporting Indonesian independence. Not for the first time, the American government was proven completely wrong. Once done with the Netherlands, Sukarno immediately turned on his naïve sympathizers, aligned himself with the Soviet Union and became virulently anti-American.

This conflict is also much closer to us today than most realize. A leftist revolutionary and insurgent becomes a world celebrity promising “social justice” while stamping out freedom, radical Islamism makes common cause with secularists against a Christian power, what amounts to ethnic cleansing is carried out but is shrugged off by the world community because the targets are people of European or partial European ancestry. A military campaign is fought and won only to have globalist politicians say they are not allowed to win and must withdraw and allow the defeated enemy to reclaim all they had lost. Western powers back fundamentally anti-western forces because they think these can be won over with kindness only to have them turn on them in the end. Does any of this sound familiar? A better question would be; does any of this NOT sound familiar? The aftershocks are still going on today.

Osama bin Laden, he remembered, others forgot
In 1975 East Timor declared independence from Portugal and the place was immediately invaded by Indonesia. Decades of warfare ensued between the Islamic Indonesians and the mostly Christian population of East Timor. The independence of Catholic East Timor from Muslim Indonesia was cited by Osama bin Laden in his 2001 statement justifying the 9-11 terrorist attack. Often upheld as the “model” Islamic country (and Indonesia is the largest Islamic country by population in the world) the divisions that existed at the time of independence still exist today between the more secular Muslims and the more fundamentalist Muslims. As of 2011, almost half of Indonesian Muslims supported Islamic law being the law of the land in their country and abroad, about 70% believed Muslims were not responsible for the 9-11 attacks. From 2007 to 2013 attacks on religious minorities in Indonesia shot up from 91 to 220. In Aceh, where the Dutch fought a particularly fierce colonial war in the 1870’s, the province adopted total shariah law in 2001. There have been an increasing number of incidents, leaving aside the terrorist bombings in Bali in 2002 and 2005 that killed hundreds of people, showing how Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise, lashing out at Christian converts (such as in West Papua or West New Guinea), insufficiently radical Muslims and those who have been rediscovering the Hindu roots of the country.

What is certain is that life has not been a pleasant succession of improvements for Indonesia since the success of the revolutionary republicans and the end of Dutch rule. Despite being a treasure house of natural resources, most Indonesians live in or near poverty while only the top government officials enrich themselves. The government has been tyrannical more often than not, frequently violent and unstable with numerous rebellions and now a growing trend toward Islamic terrorism. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, on the other hand, with virtually no natural resources, a bombed out ruin of a country in the aftermath of World War II, managed to quickly work its way back to prosperity, despite having a lower GDP than Indonesia, having a much higher standard of living. True, Marshall Aid from the United States helped in the recovery, but Indonesia has also received a huge amount of foreign aid including a huge amount of war reparations from the Japanese which is frankly ridiculous given that the man then ruling Indonesia, Sukarno, had collaborated with the Japanese so any harm they did during their occupation was harmed he helped them to accomplish! In any event, far from the socialist paradise that was promised. The overall event does, however, provide numerous lessons which we should all be able to learn from.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Beheading ISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Roots of the Terrorist Victory in Paris

So, there has been another terrorist attack by Muslim perpetrators, this time in France. And, just like the Madrid Train bombings and the July 7 bombings in London as well as numerous other acts of terrorism, the recent killing in France was carried out by French nationals, not foreigners who slipped through the security net (not that such a thing would be difficult) but by citizens of the French Republic. And it was, once again, in response to cartoons these Muslims decided were offensive to their religion. In 2010 I wrote an article about “Draw Mohammed Day” which attracted some blowback. I was not in favor of it which some seemed to take as me siding with Islamic terrorists. Hardly, I simply prefer to wage war on them rather than mocking them with cartoons, enflaming their anger but then refusing to deal with it in any meaningful way. At times like this, many people are going to ask “why?” and try to rationalize the events in some way. There are, of course, many reasons why but one simple reason is “because they can”. For the Muslims, how they practice their religion and what they do in their own countries is their own business and I have not the slightest interest in it unless it crosses their borders. That, however, is also where their responsibility must also be shared with another, in this case: France.

Acts of terrorism like this are carried out because they can be carried out and because they are effective. Have any major media outlets actually shown the controversial images in question? No, because they fear attack and that is how this works. Looking across the French border at Germany there was recently a sizeable and (I am told) rather ugly protest by Germans upset about the presence of Muslims in their country and what they called the “Islamization of Germany”. That was followed up by an even larger counter-protest by Germans who were supportive of the Muslim presence in Deutschland. On January 2, I noted on Twitter, there were Muslim-solidarity marches in Sweden in response to a string of arson attacks on Swedish mosques while that say day there was big news about a ship full of Muslims running ashore in southern Italy. Evidently, in spite of the arson and protests by people who oppose Muslim immigration, none of it has been sufficient to put Muslims off the idea of coming to Europe any way they can, by legal or illegal means. If Muslims were really being badly treated, more would not be coming to Western Europe every day. After all, even long before things got really bad in Nazi Germany, Jewish immigrants were certainly not flooding into Germany under Hitler.

France, as well as many other countries, have these problems with Muslims because they allow them to settle in France and, to be fair, the French have even done more than some other countries in trying to enforce a certain level of assimilation on new immigrants. However, that too is part of the problem because having new immigrants from Algeria or Tunisia learn the language, recite the timeline of the French Revolution or sing the Marseilles is not actually sufficient. One cannot make an Algerian into a Frenchman when even the French cannot say exactly what it means to be French. This is a problem that goes back to the Revolution itself because it is rooted in the republican mentality. There was a time when any French man or woman had a very definite grasp of what it was to be French. They understood their traditions because they continued them, they knew what their religion was and they knew their national story all the way back to Pepin, Clovis and even Vercengetorix. However, then comes the French Revolution which breaks with that past, suppresses those traditions and says the entire thousand years of French history up to that point has all been bad. What then do the people have to hold on to? How do they define themselves? They cannot, and so they drift along with passing trends of fashionable society and First World opinion.

Immigration has become a hot topic all around the world and it is one, I think, many people misunderstand. The fundamental point is a very Marxist one. Those who say people must be free to immigrate, legally or illegally, to any country they please are effectively saying that no people have an inherent right to their own property. France is not just for the French, France must be for everyone be they from Morocco, Benin or Senegal. Now, as it happens, this is a one-way street because there are still quite a few countries that would not subscribe to such thinking and it is just as well as these tend to be countries no one would want to move to anyway. The point is, these Muslim terrorists could have moved to a country that upheld their religious beliefs (there are plenty of them) but they did not because they felt entitled to live in France and demanded, by their actions, that French society change to conform to their values and sensibilities. Why do they think this way? Because France has conditioned them to as has western civilization in general. After the Madrid bombings, Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq, after Danish cartoon controversy, virtually every country self-censored in response and even after the London bombings or the terrorist attacks in America, the call was for tolerance and understanding -on our part only.

As before, with the Mohammed cartoons or people burning the Quran, I disapprove of such things. It is not proper behavior, it is needlessly antagonistic and accomplishes nothing of value. However, that does not mean there should be a law against it. A nation has every right to enact laws protecting that which is most sacred to them, be it the national flag, the King or the religion. None have a right to force other people in other lands to treat as sacred things which they do not believe to be so. What is behind violent episodes like this is one society that holds nothing sacred welcoming into its midst another society that holds certain things very sacred indeed. The secular society is ill-equipped to handle such a situation and has been getting worse. The radical Islamist is prepared to kill and to die for his beliefs whereas the secular European, or average citizen of any First World country these days, is increasingly unwilling to fight or die for anything (Americans are probably the most willing but that attitude is fading fast due to a lack of appreciation, cooperation or even moral support for America‘s alleged allies). They will hold protests, post pictures on Twitter or Instagram, march in the streets and generally make a nuisance of themselves but they will do nothing that would mean risking life, limb or their subsidies.

All of that is why, I say, they do it because they can, because so many give them cover, make excuses for them and even justify their actions. They also do it because it works because so many give in to them. You see it in acts of self-censorship, you see it in the counter-protests in places like Sweden and Germany, you see it when national policies are changed to keep such malcontents happy. One of the most blatant examples of this is the British Islamic radical Anjem Choudary who, in any right-thinking country in the world, would be deported, imprisoned or even executed for the blatant treason against his lawful Queen and country that he spews on a daily basis. In short, these things happen because the West allows them to happen and it allows them to happen because of the republican mentality which has infected monarchies like Sweden, Britain or Spain as well as republics like France, Germany and Italy. So, essentially, it all comes down to a will to survive. If Europe does not have the will to survive, the most advanced civilization in human history is in its twilight. If it does, it will be forced to embrace its own roots again, reject these idealistic, republican contrivances, believe in something and stand up for those beliefs. First and foremost though, I would say, as a practical matter that must be done is a reevaluation of “hate speech” or political correctness. Whatever one chooses to call it, it is based on the fear of being labeled a bigot or a racist or an otherwise hateful person, which is about the worst thing one can be accused of these days because of our current value system. And, that’s not a bad thing. What has, however, been disastrously bad and harmful is stretching this mentality out of all proportion to say that it is hateful or bigoted or racist or whatever to want to protect your own people, your own country and your own culture and values. That is not hateful or bigoted and shame on our society for ever thinking it to be so.

Monday, March 4, 2013

The Caliph of Islam in Turkey


It was on March 3, 1924 that the last Muslim caliphate was officially abolished and Abdul Mejid II, the last Caliph of Islam (and heir to the last Ottoman Sultan, his cousin) was removed from his position and expelled from Turkey by the first republican and then secular government of modern Turkey. Looking back, perhaps because of all that has happened in the world of the Middle East since, it seems slightly strange that the two positions did not disappear at the same time or that it was the position of Padishah Sultan that was abolished first. To be denied the title of Sultan while still retaining the title of Caliph seems rather like telling someone, ‘we do not trust you to be the ruler of our country but we still believe you are the representative of God on earth”. Does not quite make sense to me. For Turks who hold fast to their faith and the system of traditional authority embodied by the Sultan and Caliph this can only be a sad anniversary. Yet, outsiders should consider the occasion as well. The fall of the caliphate has not yielded much benefit for anyone; Turkish or not, Muslim or not.

Whether things would be a great deal better if there was still a Caliph in Turkey no one can say, but it could only be an improvement. Look beyond the Turkish borders for a moment and consider the worldwide problem today with terrorism. There are people of the worst sort, who are both murderers and cowards, carrying out terrible and despicable deeds all in the name of Islam. They butcher helpless innocents and call themselves “holy warriors”. And no one should make any mistake about what is in the hearts of these criminals, after all, the terrorists who carried out the 9-11 attacks in America spent their last night on earth at a strip club. The faithful these are certainly not. Yet, they have fooled many people into thinking that they are and by making such a claim they have blackened the name of Islam, perhaps worse than at any other point in history. I say that because, even in the days of the Crusades, a Christian like King Richard I could look at a Muslim like Sultan Saladin and consider him a brave and worthy adversary. Even in those days of open religious warfare Christians could respect the gallantry of their Muslim foes who would send their doctors to care for the Christian King.

There were terrible things that happened of course, but things were more organized and certainly it would be helpful if there were a Caliph of Islam who could speak with authority in denouncing the atrocities of the terrorists who kill the defenseless and claim to be religious men. However, as beneficial as that could be, there is also the very real possibility that such a Caliph would be ignored. Would Arab and other Muslims react positively to a Turkish Caliph of Islam? The question must be asked, I think, because the Ottoman Empire, led by the Sultan and Caliph, was brought down in part by Arab and other Muslims rising in rebellion against the Turkish Sultan and joining with the Allies (primarily the French and British) in bringing down and eventually breaking up the Ottoman Empire; the last caliphate. When, in the midst of World War I, the Sultan formally pronounced a jihad against the Allied powers, he was, for the most part, ignored by the rest of the Muslim world.

There is also the question as to whether or not our increasingly anti-traditional world would even tolerate such a figure. Turkey, for some reason which completely escapes my comprehension, seems desperate to join the European Union and the E.U. has certainly not shown itself to be favorably inclined toward organized religion. Would they allow Turkey into the E.U. if the Caliph was restored? Personally, I think that would be all the more reason to do it but I’m not Turkish and most seem to want to join the European Union. However, although the amount of wider good a restored Caliph might do is debatable, one certain thing is that the people of Turkey would have a better form of moral guidance and by going that extra step to restoring the monarchy there would be greater consistency and a form of government more in keeping with Turkish traditions and hearkening back to the days when Turkey was a great nation, a major world power and not reduced to the status of appealing for favors from the EU government in Brussels. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, having the Sultan and Caliph back would do none harm and possibly be of great benefit in countries far distant as a voice of legitimate authority.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

We Are Revenged!

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

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Mad Rant: Modern Book Burnings

There are riots and killings going on in the Muslim world in response to a trashy preacher in Florida burning a copy of the Quran. As most of you know, and I have attracted some criticism for this position, but I was against this from the very beginning. I have never been for Quran burnings or Mohammed cartoons. I maintain that position. It is insulting, provocative and it accomplishes nothing. It is not something anyone *needs* to do in order to live their lives and pursue life, liberty and happiness. That being said, I have been disgusted by the reaction to this, playing right into the hands of the media-whore preacher, by both the Muslim radicals AND the Obama administration. I understand the whole argument that ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ (I really do) but come at it from the opposite direction. This fundamentalist Christian is doing no more to Islam than what many others have done to Christianity for many, many years.


What outraged me the most was the commanding general in Afganistan, echoed by the administration saying that the burning of the Quran was an act of “extreme intolerance and bigotry”. Now, that may be completely true, but where were the liberals condemning as intolerant and bigoted the producers of “The Last Temptation of Christ” or the “artist” who smeared dung on the Virgin Mary or that Irish lesbian who tore up a picture of the Pope? How blatant and hypocritical does the double-standard need to get before people wake up?! I know it shouldn’t, but it simply astounds me. I agree that burning the Quran is juvenile, hateful and needlessly provocative but why is it that the desecration of Christian symbols is not seen in the same way? Of course, the overreaction to the fundamentalist Bible-thumper in Florida does Muslims no favors either. And, yes, I would say murdering innocent people *is* an overreaction.

This only makes Muslims look violent and irrational because the people doing these things *are* behaving violently and irrationally. This makes all those trying to argue that Islam is a religion of peace simply look ridiculous. Again, urine-covered crucifixes, portrayals of Jesus as a sexual deviant or movies like the “Da Vinci Code” has not prompted murderous rage from Christians. Even the ardent atheist Bill Maher has admitted that while he thinks all religions are wrong, he does not consider all of them equal. Insults against Islam bring death threats, riots and even murders while, as Maher said, he can insult Christians without the Pope sending one of his Swiss Guards over to stick a pike in his guts. This foolishness does absolutely no one any favors. It enrages Muslims, lowers their reputation in the eyes of the world, costs innocent people their lives and brings down calls for censorship and limitations to freedom of speech in the United States.

However, let me also say, while on that subject, that this fundamentalist jerk in Florida is not the only villain here. The people who whipped up the crowds into a murderous frenzy are, let us be honest, not the most sophisticated people in the world. The media had to first give this nut what he wanted and plaster his plan all over the TV’s of the world, but even then, you cannot tell me that everyone in the remote corners of Pakistan and Afghanistan were watching U.S. cable news to hear about this. They were reacting to what their own leaders told them, and here is the key point, they could have told them the same thing and provoked the same reaction even if the fuzz-face in Florida never laid one finger on the Quran. That is why, ultimately, trying to make any law against this sort of thing would be futile. A Quran did not have to actually be burned for rabble rousers to tell people that one had been. There is simply no logical reason why one white trash preacher in Florida burning a book should ever have even been heard about in the mountains of Afghanistan. The people there were being set up and were simply too ignorant or hateful themselves to realize it. The fact that after all this time people are still so easy to manipulate make me a very … Mad Monarchist

Friday, September 24, 2010

On the Subject of Saudi Arabia

Yesterday was the national holiday of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, marking the unification of the country in 1932. What does this especially matter to me for? Well, these days, tell someone you are a monarchist and they will ask you about Saudi Arabia. After all, monarchies like Britain, Holland, Sweden or Norway are pretty tame but Saudi Arabia is known all over the world as an absolute monarchy and to many the image of the worst sort of state imaginable. This, of course, is not true. There are a number of monarchies in the world that are absolute, not just Saudi Arabia, and while they may not fit the modern standard of a liberal democracy they are surely not the worst out there. Many refer to Saudi Arabia as a dictatorship. While it is true that one person, the King, is ultimately in charge of everything, I would defy anyone to say the state of the people of Saudi Arabia is anywhere even close to being as horrible as that of North Korea. In spite of their laws, brutal by western standards, they have nowhere near the blood on their hands as our “good friends” the communist Chinese. So, let us try to keep a little bit of perspective on this issue.

I will state up front that there is a great deal I do not like about Saudi Arabia, a great deal I find distasteful and a great deal I disapprove of. My reasons involve not only the actions of the country today, their policies and so on, but going right back to the founding of the current kingdom by the Saud dynasty. However, for all of the terrible things that go on there (again, by western standards and even in my opinion) I sometimes feel there is a tendency to ‘pile on’ Saudi Arabia. Say what you will of the country, they do not pretend to be something they are not. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, proudly so, with Islam as the official religion and Islamic law is the law of the land. Even the national motto is the Shahada (“there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet”). If you are not Muslim, you are generally neither wanted nor welcome. For this, many westerners condemn Saudi Arabia for being so intolerant but expecting western countries to tolerate them.

In this case, again, I think people are too hard on Saudi Arabia. They are, after all, living as they always have. They did not first demand tolerance from the West, it was the West that offered it. It is not the fault of Saudi Arabia that western nations have largely abandoned their own religion and, in most countries, emphatically stated in law that they have no religion. Western nations could be just as staunchly Christian (they once were) as Saudi Arabia is Muslim and it is not the fault of Saudi Arabia or any other country that they are not. Saudi Arabia is Muslim, officially and legally and they are not welcoming of non-Muslims and do not pretend to be anything else. Yet in the west many countries have no official religion or are not religiously exclusive and so have little room, as I see it, to complain that others do. What concern is it of anyone else what policies Saudi Arabia enacts in its own territory? If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Why do so many obsess over Saudi Arabia but not other equally less “free” or even worse countries around the world?

Where I think Saudi Arabia is to blame is in trying to play both sides of the fence and some of their actions truly baffle me. One is their funding and promotion of schools which teach a very fundamentalist brand of Islam out of which quite a few terrorists have come. What puzzles me about this, aside from any moral issues, is the fact that these people are generally not supporters of the Saudi monarchy. Osama bin Laden himself is an example. Many of those who condemn Saudi Arabia might be surprised to know that Osama bin Laden fully agrees with them. He is, of course, not upset about the lack of equal rights for women or thieves getting their hands cut off. He is upset that Saudi Arabia allows U.S. military bases on its soil, that the Saudi Royal Family is friendly with western powers and lives a rather different lifestyle quite often while abroad than when they are at home.

This, finally, is the most important reason why, despite my opposition to so much that goes on in Saudi Arabia, I remain at least a nominal supporter of the monarchy there. There is no doubt in my mind that if the House of Saud falls it will be a man like Osama bin Laden who replaces them. The change, I am convinced, would be one to make the change from Shah to Ayatollah in Iran seem miniscule in comparison. That is because the enemies of the Saudi monarchy, on the scene, do not oppose it for the same reason that the liberal-minded west does but rather because they do not view them as strict enough. It is also true that the Saudi monarchy has recently, slowly, been moving more toward the moderate direction. The King recently placed certain restrictions on religious leaders and, for the first time, appointed a woman to a government post. If this is the right policy only time will tell but despite outward appearances Saudi Arabia is far from secure. Already most of the oil industry is run by imported foreign workers while the native population to a considerable degree lives off the largesse of the Saudi monarchy. Aside from the radical religious opposition they are going to be in a very tight spot if the “green” movement succeeds in eliminating “our” dependence on oil. If that day ever comes the high standard of living in Saudi Arabia today will be gone and the people will be left with nothing but a giant sandbox and a population of angry, unemployed and religiously motivated young people. Mind your step Saudi Arabia.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Mad Rant: Draw Mohammad Day

Yesterday was “Draw Mohammad Day” and, fortunately in my view, it fell flat. Now, for the benefit of my adoring fans who think I am a Muslim, let me state a few facts first. I know as well as anyone what this was all about and I do find it cowardly, hypocritical and abhorrent that in western society it is perfectly acceptable to mock and ridicule other religions, particularly the Christian religion of the majority, while staying away from Islam and the Prophet Mohammad out of fear of terrorist retaliation. To my mind all this really does is send the message to other religions that, if you want to avoid disrespect, killing innocent people is the answer; it will get you want you want. However, while I think there should be no double-standards I do NOT think that means it should be acceptable to ridicule the Prophet Mohammad but rather that it should be considered unacceptable to ridicule Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary or the Buddha for that matter.

Most of these ‘artistic standoffs’ with Islam have come, let us be honest, not from Christians but from areas and peoples of the formerly Christian world who have embraced secularism and have no religion at all. Unlike these people I do NOT consider it an integral part of my culture to profane that which is sacred -to anyone. What does anyone gain from insulting Islam? Sure, it may be thrilling to annoy the Islamic terrorists but what about the Muslims who are just as aghast at these criminals, just as threatened by them and just as repelled by their methods as people in the west are? Is a symbolic tweaking of the terrorists worth offending and aggravating the majority of Muslims who do not share their murderous views? Profaning the sacred should not be part of “western culture” whether it is an insulting drawing of Mohammad or a theatre piece which portrays the Virgin Mary as a lesbian. Respect can only exist if it is reciprocal.

Now, this does not mean that I agree with bending over backwards to please everyone. For instance, I find it to be in appallingly poor taste to build a mosque next door to where the World Trade Center once stood. I do not think we should allow Saudi Arabia to build Muslim schools in western countries, claiming a right for themselves they deny to others. I am reminded of the time the Saudi King asked Benito Mussolini for permission to build a mosque in Rome. The Duce replied that he would gladly give permission if the Saudis would permit the Italians to build a Catholic Church in Mecca. Obviously the matter was dropped. Today of course there are many mosques in Rome but still absolutely no Christian churches anywhere in Saudi Arabia. I do not favor discrimination, I do favor fairness and consistency and, I would add, when I have seen Christian symbols attacked and profaned it has been done by western secularists and atheists -not by Muslims or members of some other religion. Rather than needlessly antagonizing Muslims westerners should try to be respectful of religious faith -perhaps starting with their own. No one *needs* to mock Mohammad anymore than anyone *needs* to mock the Pope (or their monarch for that matter) and these juvenile jibes at religion do not make me feel satisfied in any way they just make me mad. Terrorists should be fought openly, honestly and with stunning violence on the battlefield, not given more ammunition by further examples of godlessness and religious disrespect. I don’t see where it gets us anywhere. And no, reader who knows who you are, I am not a Muslim. I am … the Mad Monarchist.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Mad Rant: "Radical" Islam

In light of the recent events at Ft Hood, I thought the time as good as any other to discuss "radical" Islam. First of all, my own experiences prompt me to dismiss any effort by some to judge by the group when it comes to Muslims. I was once on a tour with a group of Muslim families who were obviously western converts and they were the most ill-mannered, ill-behaved, flat out rude bunch of people I've ever had to endure. Yet, while I was at university I had several classes with an African Muslim from Benin and he was the most polite, friendly, hard working student I ever met while I was there. He earned my sincere respect and was often the only other person besides myself to speak up in defense of traditional morals and values. So, to judge by the group is simply absurd.

Those Muslims who have carried out terrorist attacks are certainly enemies of civilization, both in terms of their goals and in terms of how they pursue them, launching cowardly surprise attacks on innocent people. These are the same people who are not only the enemies of my people and my own religion but also my politics; they are the same stripe as those who destroyed the monarchies of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya in terms of their political enemies if nothing else and wish to do the same to virtually all others even so staunchly Islamic a monarchy as Saudi Arabia. It would be totally wrong though to paint all Muslims with the same brush. In fact, there are ways in which I think the Christian world could take some lessons from the devout Muslims who are not terrorist fanatics. I remember an interview with His Highness the Aga Khan in which he spoke of Muslims being different from "most" Christians in that Muslims cannot seperate their religion from how they live their lives as it touches every aspect of their lives. That should be the same attitude for Christians as well and yet so many regard their faith as little more than a flag, a form of identification; something they 'are' but which has no bearing on how they live their lives.

I can also, to some extent, understand Muslim outrage at "western culture" as much of it today outrages me as well. One item I will never forget is hearing on the news, in the aftermath of the U.S. and coalition victory of the previous regime in Iraq, that for the first time in Iraqi history the "Playboy" channel was available on Iraqi TV. I can fully understand a devout Iraqi Muslim being quite outraged at the introduction of that smut which so many in the west hold up as an example of "freedom of speech". Like most religious people Muslims share many if not most of the same core traditional values as Christians. However, that understanding does not equal sympathy with how every individual chooses to deal with confronting such threats. I am also certainly not in the same camp as the multi-culturalists. I am all for learning about other cultures, appreciating them and so on, in fact I pride myself in being able to find something admirable in every people around the world. However, what is pushed for by those shouting for multiculturalism today is actually the destruction of these cultures; mixing them all together until all lose their value and all fall prey to the dull, mechanical, Bolshevik mono-culture of the liberal, elite "one world" types.

That is another reason why my zeal to defeat the current crop of terrorists does not cause me to paint all Muslims with the same brush. Most Muslims are not terrorists and I do not regard most Muslims as a threat to my religion. The greater threat is the enemy of all religions; the Bolshevik, secularist, atheist, agnostic liberal elites who look upon all relgions as hinderances to their one-world, socialist utopia. I have never seen Muslims protesting Christian symbols in my country but I see the secularists attacking them constantly. I remember a case of a Muslim in Italy protesting the presence of crucifixes on the walls of Italian classrooms but I think it telling that the person in question was a Scottish convert to Islam who had moved to Italy. For that, I have no sympathy at all -another reason why I am no multi-culturalist. If a Muslim is offended by Catholic icons he shouldn't move to the very country where the Pope lives! In the same way, someone who is offended by Buddha statues should probably not move to Thailand. If one is to move to a foreign country one must be prepared to accept the traditions of the majority and not expect them to change to please the foreign minority, though I realize that has been all the rage lately in many places.

I am a pan-monarchist and I do not want to see Muslim extremists marching in London heaping insult on the British Queen and culture. I would be very pleased to see Muslims restoring their own countries to greatness with the restoration of the great Muslim monarchies of the past. I also think the current problems reveal what a disaster it was for the west and the world as a whole when the monarchies of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and so on were destroyed. I would like to see more forceful work done toward their restoration though I am at least pleased that in Iraq and Afghanistan monarchist parties have been able to compete in the political process for the first time since their monarchies were destroyed. The world would be a better place in every way and a more peaceful place if these monarchies were restored to their former glory. I have my particular beliefs and opinions but I am also in favor of religion in general, in opposition to the liberal secularists and I am a pan-monarchist in favor of monarchy in general in opposition to leftist republican rule and, of course, I am ..... The Mad Monarchist.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Mad Rant: Obama and Islam

Obama has made his much hyped speech to Islam in Cairo, Egypt and he has mauled the truth as only someone of his leftist talent can. Whereas during the campaign he played down or silenced his Muslim background, now he is lifting it up as a benefit (during the course of his political career his father has gone from being an "atheist" to an "agnostic" to a "Muslim"). He also sang the praises of the religion of Mohammed, crediting Islam with giving the world or furthering the magnetic compass, algebra, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Not true. The ancient "Middle Kingdom" of China invented the magnetic compass, algebra has its roots in the ancient empire of Babylon (who were not Muslims at the time -Islam had not been invented yet), the Renaissance was not a result of Islam it was the rediscovery of classic civilization (Greek, Roman) by Europe. As for the "Enlightenment", I don't see how Islam furthered that nor would I consider it to be a credit to Islam if it did. The "Enlightenment" did not bring new light to Europe but rather a new darkness by stamping out the divine in human understanding.

That is not to say that the Islamic world is without accomplishments -by no means. However, a distinction that must be made is that all of the Islamic contributions to the betterment of the world came from the Muslim monarchies -not the fanatical, theocratic republics that are all too in vogue today. Turkey was never greater in learning or culture than when it had a Sultan, Iran was never greater in learning, culture and progress than when it had a Shah, Afghanistan was a much greater country when it had a king than when it had the Taliban. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Taliban regime in Aghanistan, the secularist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the terrorist state in Syria are all totally opposed to any sort of legitimate, benevolent progress. These were not and are not centers of great learning or flowering culture but are places of fear, repression and overall small-mindedness.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could easily fall into this category as well but it is clear that as bad as things may be they could be alot worse. We should not forget that Usama bin Laden, a native of Saudi Arabia, is an avowed enemy of the Saudi monarchy. I have no doubt that if the House of Saud ever falls it will not be replaced by a more benevolent monarchy but rather by a Wahabi Islamic republic. Why on earth the government seems to be encouraging their people in this direction is beyond me but for all of the failings of Saudi Arabia its fall would be a disaster in the same vein as the fall of the Iranian monarchy (which is not to say that the Pahlavi and Saudi monarchies are anything alike). The significance of the fall of the Shah of Iran cannot be overstated. A pro-western, modern-minded monarchy was replaced by a horrific revolutionary regime; the first time that the worst, fanatical elements of Islam were able to take over a state. Until that mistake is recognized I cannot hold out much hope that the current crisis can ever be effectively dealt with at its roots. Obama may wow the crowds but he will never be able to bring about peace between Islamic fanatics and leftist, anti-religion liberals in the west. Only a true return to sincere religion, cultural understanding and traditional authority can accomplish that.

Trying to reason with people who are, by definition, unreasonable is surely a mark of insanity and the continuing denial of the facts of history and republican revolutionaries ongoing weakness for buying in to their own propaganda are all further reasons why I remain The Mad Monarchist.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...