The Horror After Haile Selassie

It was on this day in 1974 that the last Ethiopian monarch, Haile Selassie, was overthrown by a communist ruled military clique, known as the Derg. Because this was the work of communists and because western media tended to ignore anything unpleasant that occurred in African countries after colonialism ended (which was supposed to solve everything) there is not much awareness about what followed but it was a living horror to put even the "Reign of Terror" to shame. After World War II, the Soviet Union made Ethiopia something of a priority and turned out massive amounts of propaganda in an effort to turn the Ethiopian people against their monarch. This was the same country that had backed Haile Selassie so long as he was fighting Italian Fascists, which had been allied with Haile Selassie in World War II and which had awarded him the military Order of Suvarov in 1959. Haile Selassie had himself also been cheering on the downfall of the European colonial empires in Africa, failing to appreciate the fact that most of the forces behind the movement were under communist control and would be no friend to him later. Likewise, when Haile Selassie was again overthrown, unlike the last time, in 1974 there would be no British Empire to set him back on his throne again. After a period of increasing unrest, instability and internal problems for the country, Haile Selassie was overthrown in a military coup and later murdered.

This military clique, known as the Derg, took absolute control of the country and was, of course, backed the whole time by the Soviet Union and their masters in Moscow. The emperor had certainly made mistakes which hurt his cause, however, he certainly cannot be held responsible for the treason of others and the issues they seized on in order to take power were almost invariably due to things far beyond the ability of the emperor to control (unless one assumes the King of kings should be able to control the weather or global oil prices). The mistakes he made shrink in insignificance compared to the mistake of his overthrow and the dismantling of the monarchy which was the only government Ethiopia had ever known in its entire, ancient history. Why was this so? A simple look at the subsequent history of the country proves it beyond all doubt. How did Ethiopia fare without a monarch? Well, there was one coup after another in this communist dictatorship that couldn’t even manage to agree on a single dictator. There were numerous rebellions, all of them bloodily suppressed, there was drought, famine, massive starvation and soon Ethiopians were fleeing their homeland in record numbers. Part of the country was even conquered by the Somalis and the Somali incursion was only beaten back with massive assistance from the rest of the communist bloc. I do not wish to sound too offensive here but, when you need the help of the Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea and Cuba to defeat a country like Somalia -you are not doing very well.

The man in charge of all of this, the man who had taken the place of Emperor Haile Selassie, was Mengistu Haile Mariam. Remember that name. What Stalin was to Russia, what Choibalsan was to Mongolia, what Mao was to China, Mengistu was to Ethiopia. He instituted a reign of terror in Ethiopia on a scale that made even the French revolutionaries look like slackers. Hundreds of thousands of people were massacred, hundreds of thousands were arrested and tortured and hundreds of thousands more were starved to death. All told, even by conservative estimates, Mengistu caused the deaths of more than two million of his fellow Ethiopians. Some believe he may have killed his former emperor personally and given what a vicious, hateful man he is, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. The Ethiopian people experienced a level of suffering under his rule that none of them had ever known before. No emperor, nor even any foreign conqueror, was so brutal and barbaric toward the Ethiopian people as Mengistu was. He intentionally murdered people by slow starvation and if there was one constant throughout his decades in power it was probably widespread starvation, some of it purposely inflicted and much of it the result of his idiotic, Marxist policies. He remains one of the most despicable villains in African history. Thanks to him, even today, when foreign people think of "Ethiopia" they tend to picture starving children.

Now, most histories will tell you that the nightmare of Mengistu and his communist tyranny ended in 1991. Do not be fooled. The nightmare has not ended and will not until traditional government, the monarchy, is restored to Ethiopia. As the Soviet Union began to fold, the primary source of aid to Mengistu dried up and his regime was toppled. He fled to Zimbabwe and the open arms of his friend and fellow tyrant Robert Mugabe where he remains to this day, despite being indicted by an Ethiopian court for genocide. However, the party that replaced Mengistu was the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, a democratic socialist party. In other words, communism for slow learners. Unfortunately, this is not unique to Ethiopia as we have seen the same all over the world. When communist regimes fall, the party renames itself the social democrats or democratic socialists and continues on just as they did before. They took power and held on to it, giving the world some show-elections just to make everyone happy while continuing on the tradition of corruption, wars and poverty that characterized the preceding regime. It is still a country of starvation and repression.

What happened in Ethiopia, under communism, is not much remembered today but everyone would do well to learn from it. The misery, the mass murder, the oppression was on a scale such as was seen in Cambodia under Pol Pot with a death toll in the millions. In the "Qey Shibir" or 'Red Terror' alone the murdered numbered in the hundreds of thousands. The Derg tried to wash its hands of the matter but the bands of radicals who carried out the killings had been armed by them and organized by them as an instrument of punishment for "reactionaries". They only came to care about the horror when some of these radical groups began to target Derg officials and sympathizers as well in a way not too dissimilar from that of Mao's Red Guards in China. In the capital city alone, aside from the adults, well over a thousand young children were murdered and left in the streets. All of this would have been enough to retard the progress of even the most advanced countries and it certainly has in Ethiopia but recovery has been even more slow and painstaking since the government still, to a large extent, clings to the leftist policies of the communist era. This summer, protests broke out against the oppression of the government as well as demands for more wealth redistribution (a learned habit) and this resulted in a crackdown that has been more violent than the country has seen in decades.

Is there a way to end the cycle of misery? Certainly, and it is not difficult to see but it will require getting rid of the entrenched, ruling elite that has persisted since the days of the Derg. Ethiopia needs to take a "back to basics" approach, restore their traditional leaders, revive traditional values, end the policies that have proven so ruinous and adopt policies that have been proven to work around the world. It means an end to the culture of dependency and a revival of a healthy sense of national pride. It also requires an emphasis on faith as the Coptic Christians of eastern Africa are becoming an increasingly imperiled minority (see events such as the crackdown in Egypt, the horrors in the Sudan and the deportation of Ethiopian laborers from Saudi Arabia for evidence of the squeezing of African Christians). If that is done, Ethiopia is well placed to play an important part in pulling east Africa back from the brink of disaster and being, as she once was, an example for others to follow as a powerful and prosperous African state.

Christ and the Emperor Tiberius

Although largely ignored or forgotten today, there was existed in Christianity a strong tradition of reverence for the imperial throne and a deeply held belief that the Roman emperor was, while not divine himself (as many were held to be by the pagans) but certainly part of God’s divine plan for the world and the Christian religion. This can be seen in the retention of certain Roman imperial traditions by the Germans, the emphasis placed on the baptism of Emperor Constantine, the reverence for his mother St Helena of the Cross and popular myths such as that Pope St Gregory the Great resurrected the pagan Emperor Trajan in order to baptize him into the Christian faith. It can be seen, as was discussed here this past August, in the stories surrounding the prophecies of the Roman sybils concerning the birth of Christ and Emperor Augustus, going all the way back to the very beginning of Christianity, or even slightly before in that regard. Again, today, none of this is talked about and doubtless very, very few Christians are even aware of these traditions or would consider them significant if informed about them. However, I find them fascinating and, in all honesty, an integral part of what I would consider the ideal for western civilization. So, I will talk about them and today the focus will be on the often notorious Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar.

History has not been terribly kind to Emperor Tiberius. He is generally regarded as a cold, cruel man at best, a “bloody tyrant” at worst and one who ended his life in a self-indulgent pool of unspeakable depravity. As usual, I will be a contrarian on this point as I have always had a much more positive opinion of Emperor Tiberius than most people, thanks in no small part to the late papal Latinist Father Reginald Foster who, while admitting that Tiberius got “a little nasty” toward the end, repeatedly asserted that, “he was not a bloody tyrant, he was a hard man” who had plenty of good points. Christians, in centuries past anyway, would likely have agreed. I first discovered this long lost tradition when writing up a long article on the “Popes and Caesars” and that tradition was that Emperor Tiberius was considered to be something of a crypto-Christian by what we might today call the pop-culture of early Christendom. For people who are familiar only with the version of Tiberius seen in movies and on television, this would certainly come as a shock and yet, for a very long time there was a widely held belief that the second Emperor of Rome was almost a Christian in his conscience.

The story, handed down from historians such as Eusebius Pamphilius and Tertullian is that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate sent reports to the Emperor about the activities of Jesus Christ and His disciples. Tiberius was, of course, the emperor when Christ conducted His ministry, was crucified, died and resurrected and it was Tiberius whom Christ referred to when He said, “render unto Caesar” and so on. According to these Christian historians, when Emperor Tiberius learned about Jesus, his heart was rather moved by the accounts and he raised the issue of deifying Christ and including him among the Roman pantheon. This, however, was refused by the Roman Senate which held that it was only by their vote that someone could become a god and this worked perfectly well with the Christians who, of course, held that the divinity of Christ was not dependent on a vote by Roman politicians. That having failed, Emperor Tiberius still insisted that the Christians not be persecuted, nor even “accused” and, these historians assert, it was this decision which enabled Christianity to grow and spread in its early, formative years when it could have most easily been suppressed.

We can see then, an assertion by these early Roman, Christian historians that a divine plan was at work, involving the Roman Emperor, by which God touched the heart of Caesar in order that Christianity could flourish and eventually convert the Roman Empire and, by that body, the whole of western civilization, to the true Faith. Later, secular, historians, of course, have a very different view. While most agree that Pontius Pilate did report on the life of Christ to Emperor Tiberius, as such would have been perfectly normal procedure, they do not agree that there is any significant evidence that Tiberius Caesar was at all sympathetic to the Christians or tried to champion their cause. The lack of initial persecution of Christians is explained away, by these secular historians with the, admittedly reasonable, assertion that in those early days the Christian religion was simply too inconsequential for the Roman authorities to bother with, a sort of passing religious trend that would come and go as others had before. Again, such a view is not unreasonable but, personally, I prefer the Christian version of events. Taken on its own, this story can certainly be discounted but, as mentioned in the previous article about the sybils, when seen in the wider context, I think it becomes much more difficult to dismiss as entirely fanciful. One could just as easily see evidence of a divine plan at work.

Eusebius Pamphilius summarized it this way:

“Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians. Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.”

Today, as mentioned, all of this is discounted, however, even if one does, it still makes a very powerful point about what Christians considered important in the days of and immediately following the original, Christian, Roman Empire. Whether true or not, this story illustrates the centrality of the imperial monarchy in Christian thinking. Romans, after all, remained Romans even after becoming Christian and their loyalty to the empire and to Caesar did not change, nor could it have been expected to since both Christ Himself and His apostles commanded obedience to the imperial authorities. The story of the Tiburtine Sybil foretelling the birth of Christ to Emperor Augustus, the story of Emperor Tiberius being sympathetic to Christianity, the story of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and the “Thundering Legion”, the story of Emperor Commodus and his Christian mistress, the story of Emperor Constantine’s vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, dismiss them all as a pack of fables if you like but the very fact that they were once so widely told makes a very profound point about the priorities and the ideals of the original Christians.

This is part of an entire tradition that Christians today are totally ignorant of and I think that is a shame. Christians today have forgotten that the earliest church councils were called by the Emperor rather than a churchman, that the imperial coronation was often referred to as “the eighth sacrament” or that the custom of anointing monarchs with holy oil at their coronation is a custom that goes back to the Eastern Roman Empire, drawing upon even more ancient traditions dating all the way back to the anointing of King Saul by the Prophet Samuel. The climax of the ceremony was the Roman Emperor taking communion and all the assembled senators and clergymen bowing prostrate before him. The imperial monarchy was thus so central to Christianity that, putting historical accuracy aside, it would have been perfectly natural for Christians to interpret events in terms of a divine plan involving the Roman emperors, the monarchs of western civilization, all the way back to the very origins of the faith and to interweave the history of the Roman emperors with the overall unfolding conversion of the west from paganism to Christianity, incorporating the figures of the pagan past into the Christian present and future rather than trying to forget everything that had come before.

In practical terms, this can also allow one to better understand why there was such an emphasis placed on the sacred nature of the imperial monarchy in the east, all the way up to the end of the Russian Empire in 1917 as well as helping to explain the often contentious relationship between the popes and the German emperors in the west. The more important something is, the more likely that it will be fought over. This was a tradition so central in fact that it survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire, was imitated by the First German Empire and by other monarchies that grew up in western Europe such as in England (where more of these traditions survive than anywhere else) and in France where the tragic King Louis XVI, heir to his own sacred royal traditions, called for, “one King, one law, one faith”, he was hearkening back, wittingly or not, to that original, united and finally Christian imperial realm with a Roman Caesar at its head. So, in the end, whether Emperor Tiberius was truly sympathetic to the cause of Christ or whether modern-day Christians would even wish to claim him (I would, but I recognize the vast majority would be horrified by the very idea), is not finally the point. The point is that such stories are either true and thus illustrate the divine guidance of the imperial monarchy from the beginning, or they are not true and thus illustrate how important the imperial monarchy was to early Christians who wished them to be so. Either way, we are inevitably drawn back to the fact, the idea and the ideal of The Empire.

King Harald Goes Full SJW

A few days ago His Majesty King Harald V of Norway gave what the mainstream media has been calling an emotional and heartfelt speech at a garden party at the Royal Palace in Oslo in which he went full blown 'Social Justice Warrior' on the assembled guests. The King managed to touch on just about every contentious issue and came down firmly on the wrong side. He decried national borders, saying "home is where the heart is" and touched all the other multicultural, diversity and tolerance chords. He called for "trust, solidarity and generosity" and said that, "Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys and boys and girls who love each other. Norwegians believe in God, Allah, everything and nothing" the last of which certainly seems true. As Mark Steyn has said, this is the attitude that 'our only value is that we have no values'. If one turns your ear slightly to the north, you might hear the faint sound of wailing as all the old Vikings in Valhalla howl in grief at what their modern-day descendants have fallen to. The King went full on 'Social Justice Warrior' and his comments fit in perfectly with them in both their content and the fact that they make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are full of contradictions.

After all, if Norwegians love God, as their forefathers certainly did (knights from Norway participated in the Crusades), they certainly would not make room for those who submit to Allah. Likewise, those who, in Norway or anywhere else, believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, gays and lesbians are certainly not the sort they will be prepared to tolerate. In a single speech, the King has essentially erased Norway entirely. If Norway is not a land defined by borders, nor a particular people nor a particular idea even, then what is left for it to be? To say that the Norse believe in everything and thus believe in nothing, is to bring relativism to its ultimate, logical conclusion. It would be nice, of course, in these days of largely ceremonial monarchs, to think that the King was simply giving the speech that his political captors forced him to give, but that seems unlikely for such an occasion as this and it comes at a time when the Norwegian government has moved somewhat, ever so slightly, to the right since 2013 when the Labor Party was finally evicted from office. Opposition to immigration has been on the rise and so, it seems, at least as likely that the King was being rather defiant in his remarks.

Since this speech hit the news, I have been asked several times to respond to it and asked why I have not responded already. Well, I was unprepared for how much of a stir it caused to be honest. I was more disappointed than shocked to hear it. As I have related here in the past, this is the sort of thing that Crown Prince Haakon has been saying for years, going to the ends of the earth to give moral support to people with unnatural proclivities. Anyone remember his visit to show solidarity with the transvestites of Nepal? If not, I assure you that is not a joke, that actually happened. I would have expected such words from him and have long worried what was going to happen when he takes the throne but I had thought the King himself to be more 'normal'. I was disappointed to see this but, again, not that surprised. Royals, as with anyone, cannot be unaffected by their environment, certainly not in Europe which is one reason why I have never been happy with the trend of sending royals to school rather than having private tutors. This is what they have been taught to believe, it is how they have been taught to think, and I feel more pity for them than anything else that they have been so blinded. It also remains to be seen how far they will be willing to go with this suicidal line of thinking.

Norway is not, I assure you, a piece of blank paper. It is a country, it has borders, it has a culture, it has traditions and it has a people. It is not "intolerant" to say so, nor is it "intolerant" to say that those borders matter, that culture is a Christian culture, those traditions are Nordic traditions and those people are Norse people. Norwegians are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus, they are not black or brown and they are not interchangeable or replaceable! Norway is beautiful, Norway is noble and its people are the inheritors of a proud legacy. If you encourage lifestyles that prevent them reproducing themselves, if you allow alien elements in to drown them with demography, all of that will be lost. You may still have an area on the map between Sweden and Denmark that is labeled "Norway" but it will not be the land of the Norsemen any longer. All that they are will be destroyed and lost forever. No salvation can be counted on from the colonies, for the same thing is happening in the American Midwest as well. In short, I could not disagree with King Harald more.

No one has asked but I have sensed some curiosity on this point so I will say that, no, this does not mean I will be cheering on the republican traitors in Norway from now on. I think the King is wrong, I think he has been misled and is dangerously mistaken. That does not change the fact that he is the King and he does not nor should not require my consent or approval to remain so. Right now, the monarchy is, as was addressed here not long ago, largely ceremonial and so I would urge Norwegians to simply pray for the King and vote in political leadership that will keep Norway Norwegian and not Arab, Somali or Sudanese. If the King is devoted to the constitution as it stands, he will be obliged to go along with this. If, on the other hand, the Norwegians do the right thing and the King attempts to resist them, I fear he may fall but I would still hope that does not happen. I would hope that loyal people would take him aside, make him see reason or, failing that, appoint a regent to carry on in his name until a more normal state of affairs can return. Treason, after all, is never the right answer and the monarchy is an integral part of the Norwegian culture that must be preserved and defended. My loyalty to the cause of kings has certainly never been dependent on my agreeing with their every position and point of view, otherwise I should have been lost quite a long time ago. No, rather, I say that Norwegians should disregard what King Harald has said, the words of a confused and mistaken monarch, but remain steadfastly loyal to the Crown and show that loyalty by coming to the rescue of their king and royal family from this disastrous way of thinking.
Ja, vi elsker dette landet!

The Crisis in Germany

That Germany is in the midst of a crisis is beyond dispute. The same could be said for most of western Europe but Germany would seem to be "ground zero" for this particular disaster. What is going on is absolutely astounding. Mass attacks on women, child rape, repeated terrorist attacks and yet the government of the Bundesrepublik remains committed to the lie that nothing is wrong, nothing must be changed, just carry on 'business as usual'. Only, if you are a woman, you might not want to go out alone if its late and you might want to dress more conservatively. Don't do anything that might offend the new arrivals, don't send the wrong message and certainly do not do anything to make them mad because while at the same time the government assures everyone that these people are perfectly innocent and peaceful, they also want everyone to walk around on eggshells for fear that the slightest offense could prompt them to an act of mass murder. Again, it's just astounding. And it is astounding that *anyone* in Germany is willing to tolerate this situation. There are those who do not of course, but they are still overpowered by those who do or, at least, those who are too afraid not to. Is there a solution to this crisis? Can anything be done?

As I wrote several years ago in The Case for Monarchy: Germany, the restoration of the monarchy would be at least a big part of the answer. Now, I realize many will (as they have done before) accuse me of being a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, but I really can come up with no other option that would save the German people from the demographic drowning their republican leaders have subjected them to. The Germans must, absolutely *must* get out from under the shadow of Nazi Germany and World War II. That is positively never going to happen in the current system because the current republic only exists because of Nazi Germany. Let me be perfectly blunt about this: the Federal Republic of Germany is not a government or a country or a nation, it is essentially a political apology. It exists only to serve as a vehicle for guilt, shame and to continuously milk the German people like they were no more than cattle in order to give money and resources to non-Germans. Patriotism is considered evil, national pride is evil, even considering the German people worthy of survival is now being considered evil. You shouldn't have to know as many mental health experts as I have to know this is not a healthy mindset for a people and is, in fact, quite dangerous. If you don't care about the suicide of the German nation, you should, because sometimes suicides take others with them when they go.

What do I mean by that? I mean that people are being pushed into a corner where they are going to wonder who, who in all of Germany's existence, ever put the Germans first, and they're going to see nothing but the scowling face of Hitler looking back at them. It isn't true of course, but it certainly seems that way due to the unnatural fascination with the man. He haunts Germany and he won't go away because his memory is far too useful as a way of shaming people into submission. And, of course, his handful of modern-day admirers don't mind at all either for it makes them seem to be the only alternative, as if modern Germany is simply seething with National Socialism just below the surface. When a regime that is in the process of destroying its own population says that Hitler is still 'Public Enemy #1' that can only help Hitler's public perception. Moreover, the Federal Republic is repeating almost all of the mistakes of the Weimar Republic that led to the Nazis taking power. Communists can agitate all they like but Nazis are arrested. Speak out against any group you like, except for the Jews, that can land you in jail. Celebrate perversity, ruin the traditional family, there are so many things Germany is doing today that it did in the 1920's that it is almost frightening. And, on top of it all, as long as Hitler remains the ultimate bogeyman, the elites are, in so many words, constantly telling the people that their only choice is them or the Nazis and when "them" means no more Germans in Germany, the Nazi's won't seem so bad.

This circular pattern must be broken! Another alternative must be put forward and that can only happen by the Germans being reconnected with their traditional, pre-1918 past. Not a past of guilt and shame but a past they can take pride in, a past that is pro-German and not anti-anyone else. There is plenty there to work with and would not require anything all that radical to accomplish. Again, I am not trying to be so partisan about this, but I see no other solution. The Weimar Republic existed as a vehicle for reparations for World War I and was doomed to fail. That failure manifested itself with the rise of National Socialism as a reaction to this and the same thing will happen again in reaction to the vehicle for the World War II guilt cudgel that is the current republic. A healthy national pride can only be achieved by embracing the totality of German history, the organic development of Germany as manifested in the First German Empire, the German Confederation that replaced it at the Congress of Vienna and finally the Second German Empire. That second empire, as we know, came together through the German princes which would be extremely difficult at this point but the example of the German Confederation would be a workable model that could, I think, be easily modified for current circumstances.

A possibility?

The symbolism is at hand already. The black-red-gold flag was, originally, the flag of the German Confederation, basically by taking the black and gold colors of Imperial Austria and adding a red stripe as a nod to Brandenburg, the electorate held by the kings of Prussia. A new confederation of German states for German people is something that could be done without princely leadership as the German princes are understandably gun-shy about having anything at all to do with politics, other than the Hapsburgs who I am not sure would be on-board with such a notion anyway. However, while I would be happy to see Austria included, I would also be just as pleased to see Austria take the lead in their own direction and work on a revival of the model of Blessed Emperor Charles for a "United States of Greater Austria" across the old Hapsburg lands. A place for every people and every people in their place. Either way, turning away from the current system is no longer only preferable but vital for the survival of the Germans as a people.

All of this can be accomplished if the Germans can get back in touch with their ancient roots. The Germans have a long and glorious history of great kings, great thinkers, great saints and great artists. It only serves the interests of those in power now to pretend as though nothing of German history can be seen beyond the concentration camps. I am certain that every German today, whether they like it or not, knows who Adolf Hitler is. I doubt every German today knows who Otto the Great or Friedrich Barbarossa was -and that is scandalous. That is intentional. That must change and change quickly or the Germans will not survive. And for those whose mindless hatred might make them think that would be no great loss, be forewarned that the death throes of the German people could leave quite a lot of devastation behind. Western European nations have displayed something of a habit of this, be it the French in regards to the British or the British in regards to the Germans themselves, that once their blood is thoroughly up they will willingly rush headlong into ruin so long as they can take their enemy down with them. That wouldn't be pretty and no rational person should ever want such a thing to happen. Let us take care that it does not.

America and Mexico, Success and Failure

Given that I have, for some time, been rather vocal about the superiority of government based on natural development and traditional authority, I have at times been asked to explain why two close, neighboring republics, the United States and Mexico, could be so different from the other with the United States being so successful that it is the longest-lasting major republic on earth and a global superpower while Mexico is, roughly speaking, a failed state that its own people flee from and regard the prospect of being sent back to as a fate worse than death. After all, Mexico has, in many ways, been more "traditional" than the United States of America. It has had two monarchs of its own (both of whom were murdered by their own subjects), it had for quite some time recognized hereditary titles, maintained an established church and, frankly, started out in the colonial period much more advanced than the British North American colonies that became the United States. In a world where, loved or hated, so many focus obsessively on the U.S.A. we tend to forget that colonial "New Spain" had hospitals, institutions of higher learning and a printing press when the English-speaking colonists to the north were huddling, half-starved, in ramshackle huts on the New England coast. Why is there such a huge contrast between the success of America and the failure of Mexico?

The answer would require more in-depth explanation than I could possibly give here as one could take into account the immense number of centuries of the development of both populations going back to their very long and immensely different histories in England and Spain, however, there is one difference I will highlight here, even though, given my political views, I do not like the sound of it, nevertheless, I cannot believe other than that it is true. First of all, one thing that most monarchists will probably agree on is that stability for a country is extremely important. Human beings can adapt to a wide range of extreme hardships and difficulties so long as there is stability. You can put considerable hurdles in the path of humanity and so long as those hurdles are fixed, people will usually find a way over or around them. Stability matters and, I think, it matters a great deal that the history of the United States, other than one extremely brutal four-year period of mass fratricide, has been a very stable country whereas Mexico has not. In fact, the longest period of sustained stability in Mexico was, I hate to say, probably the better part of a century the country spent as a socialist dictatorship under the PRI and that stability was based on government force, brutal violence, deception and corrupt agreements with organized crime. Not an ideal sort of stability by any means, nor one that could possibly be sustained (as it wasn't).

Tories land in Canada

How then, can this difference in the stability of each country be accounted for? My proposal for today is that it all goes back to the Tories. Yes, those long-suffering and much vilified American colonists who remained steadfastly loyal to King and country during the War for Independence. I think the U.S.A. owes much of its stability to, and this is the hard part for me to say, their absence from the political scene (it hurts every time). As we know, the American War for Independence was, in origin, a civil war within the British Empire between Whigs and Tories which later escalated into a world war as numerous countries tried to take advantage of the unhappy position the British found themselves in. So, there were royalist Americans (the Tories) and there were republican Americans (the Patriots) and, in the end, the republicans won the war (with thanks to France, Spain and the Netherlands). The American loyalists, for the most part, were not prepared to carry on living in the independent United States of America, both because of how they had been treated by their rebel countrymen and because it simply was a violation of their principles to even consider such a thing. These loyalists therefore packed up and set sail for the Bahamas, for England or for Canada. In fact, they provided the foundation for much of English-speaking Canada as we know it today since, prior to that time, Canada had predominately been French.

Because the Tories left the United States, the population that remained was dominated by the other two-thirds (as John Adams famously estimated it) who were Patriots or had no problem with the Patriots. Although there were certainly plenty of these early Americans disagreed about, by and large, they all agreed on the fundamental foundations of their new country such as republicanism, egalitarianism (as understood at the time) and a level of democracy. They may have argued, as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions emerged, about exactly what sort of constitutional republic they were to have, but that they were to have a constitutional republic rather than a constitutional monarchy with an established church and titled aristocracy was beyond question. After all, everyone who passionately favored those things had left the country, doubtless shaking the dust from their shoes as they came aboard ship. I think this played a very critical part in why the United States was as stable as it was, for as long as it was, until the states' rights and slavery issue boiled over, resulting in a unity that was, certainly in the immediate aftermath, based on armed force by overwhelming military might. Mexico, on the other hand, had a very different set of circumstances.

The Embrace of Acatempan

Mexico, like the British colonies, had republicans and royalists as well. They also had an established and politically involved church, the Roman Catholic Church, which supported the Spanish Crown. Mexico became independent quite a few years later than the United States because the Spanish or pro-Spanish Mexican royalists had a stronger position in the country. Essentially, in Mexico, there were Mexicans who favored a republic and Mexicans who favored a traditional monarchy. When the republicans, such as under the heretical priest Father Hidalgo, rose up in rebellion, the Spanish were able to count on the support of the Mexican monarchists in suppressing such troublemakers. Yet, in time, the Mexican monarchists were alienated from Spain and, after having fought in defense of the Spanish Crown, decided to make common cause with the pro-independence republicans so long as the independent Mexico would be a monarchy rather than a republic. This coming together of the two sides for the cause of independence has long been represented by the legendary embrace of the conservative Don Agustin de Iturbide and the revolutionary Vicente Guerrero, the famous 'Abrazo de Acatempan'.

The result was the success of the anti-Spanish forces, the independence of Mexico and the short-lived first Mexican Empire with General Iturbide as Emperor Agustin I. It was short-lived, however, because the republicans were still there and soon fought to overthrow and ultimately kill their Emperor. Likewise, when Guadalupe Victoria assumed office as the first President of Mexico, those who had favored the empire were still on hand. They could not, as the Tories had done, simply move in a mass exodus to some other part of the Spanish-speaking world because they were, as far as the Spanish were concerned, just as much traitors as their former republican comrades had been. Iturbide, for example, had gone into exile in England rather than Cuba or Spain itself because the Spanish authorities would have executed him for treason. The Tories in America had, as their most fundamental principle, their loyalty to the British Crown and King George III whereas in Mexico, the monarchists had broken away from the wider, global Spanish empire in favor of having an empire of their own so that, even had they desired to, there was no way they could turn back from the path they started down with Iturbide.

So, these two irreconcilable forces remained in Mexico and continuously fought for control of the country. The factions changed names or shifted back and forth from federalists versus centralists, clericalists versus anti-clericalists and so on until the monarchists were restored to power thanks to the intervention of the French which gave us the second Mexican Empire under the ill-fated Emperor Maximilian of 1864-1867. It was only after that tragedy that the power of the Mexican monarchists was broken for good, though some elements still remained. One could also argue that the original period of instability between the monarchists and republicans set the pattern for future instability even after the monarchists were wiped out as a significant political force. Different styles of republicans carried on trying to effect change in the way that had been established. One could, perhaps, even see the horrific Cristero War as a sort of last gasp or perhaps after-shock of the old republican versus monarchist rivalry in Mexico. The U.S. was very different in that the political divisions, while certainly serious, were never so irreconcilable as those between ardent republicans and monarchists.

This is, of course, simply my opinion, bolstered by historical facts but some may draw other conclusions from the histories of the two countries. However, it seems to me that this played a major part in why the U.S. was so much more stable compared to Mexico. I do not doubt that, in this day and age, many will disagree. After all, if the argument I have made is correct, it would be rather in defiance of the current popular slogan that "diversity is a strength". However, I do not see the historical record as supporting such a notion. The outbreak of the Wars of Religion in France or the Thirty Years War in Germany after the birth of Protestantism brought about more "diversity" of views on Christianity would seem to support such a position as would the lack of such wars in places like Spain, Italy or even Russia, which lacked such diversity. To me it seems a rather obvious point of view that one cannot have a great deal of conflict over politics or religious if everyone holds essentially the same fundamental beliefs about such things for the same reason that there are no race riots in Japan or clashes between Christians and Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Diversity, I would think, tends to necessitate divisions and few things can cause instability like divisions regarding something so fundamental as the very form of government one is to submit to.

Soldier of Monarchy: Afonso de Albuquerque

In the long and glorious history of the Kingdom of Portugal, if one seeks a great military commander it would be difficult to find a name to surpass that of Afonso de Albuquerque, Duke of Goa. As both a general of ground forces and an admiral of naval forces, Albuquerque achieved far-reaching successes and this, combined with his astute judgment, strategic brilliance and the boldness and ambition of all great explorers, went a long way to the establishment of the Kingdom of Portugal as the first, and for some time preeminent, global maritime power. It is no great exaggeration to say that he won more victories, contacted more remote peoples and made more long-lasting decisions of consequence than anyone in Portuguese history, perhaps any other of his age from any country. The fact that he is not more well known outside of Portugal is, frankly, baffling, given his extensive list of achievements. Within the borders of Portugal, naturally and quite legitimately, he is remembered as a national hero, one of the (numerous) giant figures of the “Age of Exploration” and a military commander whose far-reaching victories earned him the title of “the Caesar of the East”.

King John II

Born sometime in 1453 in Alhandra, near Lisbon, to aristocratic parents, Afonso de Albuquerque had a privileged childhood. His father held a post at court and was related, through an illegitimate line, to the Portuguese Royal Family. Young Afonso was given the best education possible, was well trained in religion, warfare, mathematics and Latin and was a childhood friend of the future Portuguese monarch King John II. When he was old enough, he joined the army and first saw action in North Africa where he served for ten years, learning on the job as he battled with the Portuguese army against the Muslim Arabs and Ottoman Turks. He served under King Afonso V in the conquest of Tangier, Morocco in 1471 and later in campaigns against Castile in Spain. In 1480 he participated in the victorious campaign in Italy against the Ottoman Turks at Otranto, saving the day for the Spanish forces of King Fernando II of Aragon. When his friend became King John II of Portugal, he was given the prestigious post of “Master of the Horse” and saw further victories in North Africa.

The era of the greatest Portuguese expansion came during the reign of King Manuel I and did not initially include Albuquerque who was slightly old by the standards of the time and who the new, young monarch was somewhat suspicious of. However, his time came in 1503 when he was charged with leading an expedition to India. Albuquerque reached the subcontinent and made an alliance with some locals to make war on the ruling potentate of Calicut. He won a number of battles and was able to see his own native ally enthroned as the King of Kochi. In appreciation, the King allowed Albuquerque to build Fort Emmanuel on the Arabian Sea coast and establish trade relations between Portugal and the surrounding region of India. This was a crucial foothold for what would grow to be an extensive Portuguese presence in India and the start of a vast empire in Asia for the Kingdom of Portugal.

Ft Immaculate Concepcion remains in Ormuz

This expedition was so successful and so quickly won that King Manuel promptly sent Albuquerque back to India on another expedition in 1506, though this time as a squadron commander within a larger fleet commanded by Tristan da Cunha. Along the way they landed on the east coast of Africa, attempted sending envoys to Ethiopia and Albuquerque conquered the island of Socotra (today belonging to Yemen) and established a fortress there with the intention of controlling traffic in and out of the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean. The site was well chosen, though the fort was abandoned a few years later. While the rest of the expedition sailed on to India, Albuquerque was tasked with expanding Portuguese influence in the region and so he embarked on a military campaign, winning battles and capturing cities, culminating in the capture of the city of Ormuz. This was a very strategic point for control of the Persian Gulf and the local king became a vassal of the King of Portugal, breaking off his previous tributary relationship with the Shah of Persia. That was accomplished in 1507 and all with only 7 ships and about 500 Portuguese soldiers and sailors.

However, there were problems, and as Albuquerque made all of his men, regardless of rank, share in the work of building fortifications and so on, some of the more high-born officers rebelled and absconded to India to join the main fleet, claiming that Albuquerque was exceeding his authority. Left short-handed, Albuquerque was forced to abandon Ormuz, make a few raids for supplies and finally sail for India himself. Once there he found no help from the Viceroy, who Albuquerque was supposed to replace, and who had been fortified by the testimony of the malcontents who had abandoned Albuquerque and preceded him to India. Nonetheless, Albuquerque refused to have any part in a rebellion and simply bided his time, with his own loyal men, at Kochi where he was still well received. His enemies, however, would not be so considerate and after winning a decisive victory that expelled the Muslims from the Indian Ocean, Albuquerque was arrested in August of 1509.

Fortunately, this confinement was only to last for three months at which time the Marshal of Portugal arrived with a large fleet and orders from the King to set things in order. Albuquerque was released and in November of 1509 was appointed Governor of India. In January of the following year, Albuquerque set out on a military campaign to conquer Calicut. However, the offensive ended in fiasco when another Portuguese force advanced into an ambush, forcing Albuquerque to come to the rescue and fight his way back out again with heavy losses. He rebuilt his forces, best he could and learned that the fleet of the Egyptian Mamluks was sheltering at the port of Goa and the local sultans were busy fighting each other and would not be able to come together against him with full force. Seeing an opportunity, in the spring of 1510 Albuquerque attacked and seized the port of Goa. However, it was a difficult undertaking, massive forces were sent against him and the local Hindu population, originally supportive in freeing themselves of Muslim rule, turned against him and he was forced to abandon the city. Nevertheless, Albuquerque returned in November with Portuguese reinforcements, as well as more native allies and by December forced the surrender of the Sultan and his Turkish allies.

Despite numerous attacks to re-take the city, Goa remained steadfastly in Portuguese hands and the most important port in the Portuguese territories in India. Albuquerque established a mint, made contact and some alliances with other Indian rulers and was soon well placed to take control of the spice trade routes. In order to seize control of the spice trade, previously held by Muslim powers, Albuquerque was tasked by the King to capture the Strait of Malacca in Southeast Asia. Some Portuguese had already been seized by the local potentate and one of these men had smuggled out a letter, via a Hindu trader, to Albuquerque, begging for rescue and providing a description of the local fortifications. Against the orders of his immediate superior, Albuquerque gathered a force of 18 ships, 900 Portuguese and 200 hired Hindu mercenaries and set out for Malacca in 1511. One of the men under his command, incidentally, was the future navigator of renown, Ferdinand Magellan.

Albuquerque

Albuquerque approached Malacca in grand style and bombastically demanded the capitulation of the local ruler, Sultan Mahmud Shah. The Sultan released the Portuguese prisoners but refused to surrender, feeling he had little to fear from a force of a little over a thousand men considering that he had at his command a mercenary force of around 20,000 and 2,000 cannon. However, Albuquerque planned a clever attack and had the support of many of the local merchants who despised the Sultan and the favoritism he showed his fellow Muslims at the expense of others. Sailing up the river that divided the city, the Portuguese troops fought a fierce battle, seizing control of the bridge that linked the two halves and then repelled a heavy assault, including war elephants, launched by the Sultan. Albuquerque and his men attacked, defeated the enemy and seized the city on August 15, 1511, the troops being allowed to pillage but with the property of those locals who had supported them and asked for protection remaining unharmed and their businesses respected. Albuquerque, always alert to the possibility of a future counter-attack, set his men to work building a fortress, in part using stones from the local mosque his forces had demolished.

In the aftermath, Albuquerque showed considerable astuteness in establishing a new system of administration, ending the discriminatory practices that favored Muslims and appointing new leaders based on merit and with an eye toward future beneficial alliances. He then sent out envoys, complete with generous gifts, to establish commercial ties with neighboring powers such as the princes in Sumatra, the King of Burma and the King of Siam (Thailand). In 1512, after having learned from local traders the location of the famous “spice islands”, he sent an expedition to claim them, the ships amassed a huge fortune in nutmeg and cloves but were wrecked on the return voyage, though they nonetheless laid the groundwork for future profits, having established good relations with the locals and even being permitted to build a fort on Ternate island in the Moluccas (part of modern Indonesia). In 1513 another expedition dispatched by Albuquerque established trade relations with the Great Ming Empire of China, which was later interrupted by a period of conflict, but business relations were eventually restored, paving the way for the establishment of the Portuguese enclave at Macau with the consent of the Ming Emperor.

Albuquerque

Finally, in 1511 Afonso de Albuquerque set off to return to Portugal, weighted down with an immense wealth of treasure with which to impress King Manuel of the value of the regions he had secured for the Portuguese Crown. Unfortunately, his ship was sunk in a storm and Albuquerque barely escaped alive. He was able to reach Kochi in India but found, to his dismay, that Goa was under attack and many of his own countrymen had advised giving up this most valuable port. Albuquerque was having none of that and, after receiving reinforcements, set out from Cochin in September of 1512 with 14 ships and 1,700 troops, launched a bold attack, defeated the forces of the Sultan of Bijapur, led by Rasul Khan, and reestablished full Portuguese control of Goa for good.

The following year, Albuquerque received an envoy from the queen-regent of Ethiopia, a country the Portuguese had tried to contact before. This was huge news as many had believed that Ethiopia, said to be ruled by Christians, might be the rich and powerful land of legend ruled by the mythic “Prester John”. The Ethiopians seemed open to an alliance with Portugal in opposition to the common enemy of the Ottoman Turks. In support of such a campaign, in 1513 Albuquerque sailed into the Red Sea with 1,000 Portuguese soldiers and 400 Asian mercenaries to attack Aden, however, strong defenses, contrary weather and sickness among his men, caused the campaign to fail and Albuquerque was forced to return to India. Once back in the subcontinent, Albuquerque continued building up the Portuguese administration, establishing relations with more Indian princes, making alliances, business agreements and exchanging embassies, growing the Portuguese presence and influence throughout the region. In 1515 he led an expedition to recapture his old prize of Ormuz, reestablishing Portuguese control of the strategic point which would last until an Anglo-Persian alliances ejected them in 1622.

The wealth, the treasures, the exotic animals and so on that Albuquerque sent back to Portugal caused a huge sensation all across Europe and sparked the drive for other nations to set out for the distant lands of Asia over the trail first blazed by the Portuguese. Thanks largely to the victories of Albuquerque, it seemed that no matter where such future Dutch, Spanish, French or British forces went, they found that the Portuguese had invariably preceded them. Albuquerque, however, fell ill on the return voyage from Ormuz and died at sea, within sight of Goa, India. At the end, his final days had been troubled by a plot against him by jealous and ambitious men who tried to turn King Manuel against him. He died on December 16, 1515 and was first buried in Goa but his body was later returned to Portugal in 1566 with all appropriate fanfare for the Governor of Asia, Duke of Goa and Governor and Captain-General of the Seas of India. His name was seldom spoken without the appellation of “the Great” attached to it and for good reason. King Manuel I, regretful at having, for a time near the end, doubted the loyalty of so great a servant of the Crown, lavished rewards on his son and ensured that no future Portuguese would forget the name of Afonso de Albuquerque, the man who gave the Kingdom of Portugal an empire from the Persian Gulf, to India to Southeast Asia.

Portuguese control of all access points to the Indian Ocean

In total, the contribution of Albuquerque to the glory of Portugal would be difficult to overstate. A tireless man, campaigning to the end of his life, his ambition was boundless. He famously contemplated changing the course of the Nile River and capturing the corpse of the prophet Mohammed to hold hostage until the Muslims vacated the Holy Land! His victories ended the Muslim monopoly on Asian trade, expelled them from the Indian Ocean and gave Portugal the first dominate position in the lucrative importation of spice. He established the Portuguese presence in India that was to outlast all others (ending only in 1961), gave the King of Portugal control of the vital, strategic “choke points” at the gateways of the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Malacca connecting the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea. He established contact and trade with numerous world powers and these new avenues for enterprise, trade routes and fortresses enabled Portugal to become, at the time, the wealthiest country in Europe. Furthermore, just as important as what he did was the foresight he showed in recognizing strategic positions and lucrative possibilities that later explorers and traders were to build upon. It is then, little wonder that he became known as “the Portuguese Mars” and, “the Lion of the Seas”.

Princely Profile: Sultan Hamid II of Pontianak

During the wave of anti-colonialism that swept the world in the wake of World War II, which had devastated the European colonial powers, native monarchs in these countries found themselves in an almost impossible position, trying to maintain traditional values and authorities against a population that was backed by ideological forces, usually Marxist, fundamentally opposed to all traditional institutions everywhere. Those pushing an anti-European racist narrative, because this was easier for people to understand than the nuances of socialist economic and political theories, had an easier time vilifying such monarchs who stood by the existing, pre-war power structure because they could play on the primitive drives of human nature such as envy, resentment and hatred of the alien, white-skinned Christian people while the monarchs who remained supportive of the colonial system had only reason to reply with, trying to make people understand that these white-skinned Christians had brought important positive advancements to their countries and could be worked with, in the new environment, to enact more beneficial changes than those advocating a total break. One of the monarchs faced with this unenviable situation was His Highness Sultan Hamid II of Pontianak in what is now Indonesia.

The future sultan was born Syarif Abdul Hamid Alkadrie on July 12, 1913 in Pontianak, an important trade port on the northwest coast of the island of Borneo. He had a very cosmopolitan upbringing, being raised until the age of 12 by two ladies of British nationality who taught him fluent English, his Scottish foster-mother Miss Salome Catherine Fox and Miss Edith Maud Curteis. His own ancestry was Malay-Arab and he attended Dutch colonial schools in what was then the Dutch East Indies (today Indonesia) before finishing his education at the Dutch military academy in Breda, The Netherlands. Upon graduating he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Royal Dutch East Indies Army, the primary colonial military force of The Netherlands. As the son of the Sultan Syarif Muhammad of Pontianak, of the Hang Dynasty Alkadrie, he was also given instruction by native teachers for the duties he would inherit and there was religious instruction in Sunni Islam, the faith of his family and which he was to adhere to for the entirety of his life.

Prince Hamid returned to the Dutch East Indies to take up his military duties during the reign of Sultan Syarif Thaha. He had good relations with the Dutch, with other Europeans, not surprising considering his upbringing, but also a very clear understanding of the often tumultuous world of East Indies dynastic politics. His foster-mother Miss Fox died in 1933 but he continued to keep in touch with Miss Curteis. The Royal Dutch East Indies Army was mostly concerned with internal security as The Netherlands had no foreign enemies to cause any fear of invasion and the local anti-Dutch independence movement had not been very serious and was relatively easily dealt with. Their most troublesome leader, Sukarno, was arrested and to most the Dutch East Indies seemed the ideal colony, peaceful, orderly and doing a booming business in trade and oil exports. The only trouble in Asia was far to the north in China and European affairs were considered far more serious. However, even after the outbreak of World War II and the German conquest and occupation of The Netherlands, life in the Dutch East Indies largely carried on as it had before, directed by the government-in-exile in England.

All of that changed on December 7, 1941 when the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by the Empire of Japan signaled the start of a huge, very intricate but very well planned Japanese offensive throughout Southeast Asia. The whole area was relatively swiftly conquered and the Dutch East Indies were the primary target due to the vast oil reserves and other natural resources which the archipelago had. The Dutch colonial forces offered heroic but futile resistance but in the early months of 1942 the whole area was seized and occupied by the Japanese. Sukarno was set at liberty along with any other anti-Dutch dissidents to aid in the Japanese occupation and war effort. Local princes who chose to cooperate could expect no harm but the entire white population was put in internment camps. Prince Hamid was also confined to an internment camp, in Java, by the Japanese as they had good reason to expect no cooperation from him. Early in the campaign about 28 relatives of the prince were killed by the Japanese along with his other maternal figure Miss Curteis. His father and two of his brothers were killed, along with other ethnic Malays in the “Pontianak incidents” and this, along with his close relationship with the Dutch and rank in the colonial army ensured that there would be no thought of any collaboration between Prince Hamid and the Japanese.

The Prince remained interned for three years until the Empire of Japan surrendered and Allied forces landed to liberate him and his fellow captives. The Dutch, conscious of what he had endured, partly due to his friendship with them, recognized him with a promotion to the rank of colonel. On October 29, 1945 he succeeded his father as Sultan of Pontianak, taking the name Hamid II. Of course, by this time, political events in the Dutch East Indies were changing rapidly. After maintaining military rule throughout the war, once their cause was lost, the Japanese, on their way out the door as it were, tapped Sukarno to declare Indonesian independence from the Dutch Crown. There was a great deal of chaos and confusion as Indonesian rebels made attacks while Allied forces were in place, the Dutch coming in and the Japanese were still in the process of moving out.

HM Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands, throughout World War II, had been adamant about restoring and maintaining the Dutch colonial empire and was not prepared to let the weakness of her country, after years of war, occupation and devastation, be taken advantage of. However, the Queen was also aware of the limitations on her long-suffering people and so was prepared to make compromises. Sultan Hamid II, being an important traditional authority figure and someone who the Dutch trusted, was right in the middle of these events as a delegate for the State of West Kalimantan in the Federal Consultative Assembly or BFO. The Dutch proposal was that the East Indies become a sort of federal republic of monarchies and states, the independent United States of Indonesia but still within the Dutch community and with the Queen of The Netherlands as sovereign. Sultan Hamid II supported this plan, preferring the federal system put forward by the Dutch and which had proven successful in Malaysia as a way to maintain traditional authorities without incessant in-fighting. Sukarno and his faction, a volatile combination of Marxists and Islamists as well as more mundane secular socialists, wanted a unitary state and a republic with no connection to The Netherlands at all and all traces of the Dutch population purged from the country.

Queen Wilhelmina with Sultan Hamid II

Sultan Hamid II, and others like him though he was probably the most prominent, knew enough about local, native, politics to see what was behind the unitary state idea of Sukarno. Rather than a federal state of power-sharing such as is still the case in the Kingdom of Malaysia, Sukarno’s unitary state would mean the domination of all by the Javanese. Sultan Hamid II, therefore, led the locals opposed to Sukarno and his republicans and as well as being the highest ranking native in the colonial army, he was also given the position of “Adjutant in the Extraordinary Service of Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands”, effectively the highest level of advisor to the Dutch monarch. When any agreement with Sukarno, and those more radical than him, proved hopeless, the Dutch responded with a number of military operations or “police actions” some of which, in his military capacity, Sultan Hamid II participated in.

The first such operation saw the Dutch royal forces take control of most key areas of the country, the urban centers and major ports. The second of the two largest, Operation Kraai or “Crow” saw a greater further victory with the capture of Sukarno, his deputy Mohammed Hatta and the Indonesian Republican leadership at Yogyakarta where the local Sultan, a sympathizer, had been sheltering them, at the end of 1948. Unlike the republican rebel leadership, who surrendered to the Dutch, their host, Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX, remained in his palace throughout the battle and refused all efforts at reconciliation by the Dutch. Sultan Hamid II was brought in to try to mediate with his fellow prince, to win him over, but all such efforts were rebuffed. Unfortunately, for the Dutch and the counter-revolutionary locals, the very success of this operation worked against them as The Netherlands came under pressure from the United Nations to give in to the revolutionaries they had just defeated. Fearing that the Marxists in Sukarno’s coalition would make the country a Soviet satellite, United States President Harry S. Truman (Democrat, Missouri) decided to sell-out a war time ally and threatened to cut off Marshall Aid to The Netherlands if Queen Wilhelmina did not give in to the rebels and accept Indonesian independence.

There was no realistic option other than to comply though Queen Wilhelmina could not stomach such a thing, abdicating in favor of her daughter, Queen Juliana, who was left to preside over the separation of Indonesia from The Netherlands. The independence of Indonesia was de facto recognized on December 27, 1949 in Java and Sumatra and Sultan Hamid II suddenly found himself having to answer to President Sukarno, recently released from captivity yet again. The Sultan was appointed to the cabinet of the new United States of Indonesia though he was given no portfolio, it being a rather symbolic gesture as a token to the native traditional rulers. In any event, the feigned pretense of this federal system would not last long in any event as Sukarno remained committed to his unitary republic.

Capt. Ray Westerling

Sultan Hamid II could see this as well as anyone, perhaps better than most, and understood the local politics behind it. As such, he began to organize with his former fellow comrades of the Royal Dutch East Indies Army, particularly Captain Raymond Westerling, to launch an anti-Republican coup against Sukarno in Bandung and Jakarta. With elements of the old colonial forces, the Royal Netherlands Army, including the Special Forces, Dutch nationals and local counter-revolutionaries, the coup attempt was made in January of 1950 but proved to be a fiasco and fell apart by the following month. In April, Sultan Hamid II was implicated in the plot and soon enough the pretense of federalism was given up as his own state of West Kalimantan was brought under the central control of the increasingly unitary Republic of Indonesia. Sultan Hamid II endured two periods of incarceration for (false) charges of “treason” and had to endure in isolation as, when the trouble began, he had sent his wife, a prominent local lady of mostly Dutch blood but some lofty native ancestry as well, Didie van Delden, given the name and title of Sultana Maharatu Mas Makhota and their two children, a son and daughter to live in The Netherlands, where they remained.

His reign ending in 1950, Hamid II was succeeded by Syarif Abubakar as Sultan of Pontianak, though it meant little in the new regime. Former Sultan Hamid II, when not being hounded by the authorities, lived a quiet life of service and died on March 30, 1978 in Jakarta. His wife died not long ago in 2010 and his son, Pangeran (Prince) Syarif Max Yusuf Alkadrie lives in The Netherlands. The legacy of Sultan Hamid II in Indonesia has been controversial, first being portrayed as a villain and a traitor as is always the case with the opponents of successful revolutions. Benedict Arnold would be an American hero if the British had won the war, as I often point out. However, he does have one lasting legacy even if few people in modern Indonesia know about it which is that it was Sultan Hamid II who designed the “Garuda Pancasila”, the national emblem of Indonesia, based on the early Hindu legends of the islands, which was adopted in 1950.

So, every time a modern Indonesian sees that insignia, they are seeing something designed by a man, no less patriotic than others, but a prince who had a very different view on how the country should have been organized. Today the legacy of the sultan is somewhat more moderate and less unfavorable as the family has worked to get alongside the powers-that-be and historians have come forward with an alternate view of the man as someone who was not opposed to the Revolution really but simply had a different vision for how the independent Indonesia should be organized, federal rather than unitary, friendly with the Dutch rather than hostile and so on. From what I have been able to gather, it seems his reputation is these days improving.

When Libertarians Went Off the Rails

I have written about the Libertarians before, relating some of the ways I agree and disagree with them but this political season I have had to burn some bridges with the Libertarians or, at least, the “official” established Libertarian powerhouses of this country such as the Libertarian Party and Reason Magazine. However, while some of my previous problems with libertarianism remain, this time something has changed and that is that the mainstream American Libertarians seem to have gone so far into the weeds of “principle” that they have largely abandoned what they were supposed to be all about. So, this time, some of my biggest problems are not with “libertarianism” but with the Libertarians who are currently in charge, at least in this country. Gone are the days of Congressman Ron Paul who wanted to stop using American troops to guard foreign borders and use them to guard the American border, now the Libertarian Party seems to be all about globalism, big government, nanny states and open borders. All of which goes against what they are supposed to be about!

First of all, I still have my long-standing problem with Libertarian priorities. They claim to want to dismantle the welfare state, not a bad idea in my view, but after never making it a priority, this time around, in several discussions I’ve had with Libertarian Party supporters, it has absolutely been thrown so far down the road as to drop off the cliff of reality. They don’t care about it and they’re not going to do it because calling for that would make them very unpopular. Legalize drugs? That’s popular, just like gay “marriage” and open borders. However, so many things that I would not really oppose so much if the welfare state didn’t exist, like the laws against gambling or drug abuse, depend entirely on getting rid of the welfare state first so that I don’t have to carry people who ruin their lives even more than I already do. So, the priorities issue is still there but leads into a big problem for me which is either new or at least new to me and that is the Libertarian devotion to having one, big, borderless world.

Milton Friedman, usually beloved by Libertarians, didn’t like borders but even he said it would be disastrous to have open borders AND a welfare state, nothing could bankrupt a country faster than that. However, Libertarians want open borders and, yeah, maybe, some day, at some point, in the far off vague future time, they might dismantle the welfare state. This is insane policy *for Libertarians* and seems to go against what Libertarians are supposed to believe in, or at least what I thought they did. For one thing, whether it is rational or not, history has shown us electoral patterns of behavior and one of those is that immigrants vote for the left-wing party, the party of bigger government, the party of more social welfare for people like themselves. That means that the Libertarians are cheering on the importation of a new population that will NEVER vote for them and ensure they never achieve national office. At least with the Democrats and Republicans, their positions on immigration are rational. Democrats want more because immigrants vote for Democrats and Republicans want less for the same reason. Libertarians, however, are so focused on their principles that every individual, every where in the world should be able to go wherever and whenever he/she/it wants, that they are acting against their own political self-interest. What would Ayn Rand think of you?

This also reveals something that surprised me about Libertarians which is that they just went from the party of small government to the party of global government. They seem to think, rather like the mandarins of ancient, Imperial China, that the whole world is governed by the United States and those places beyond are borders are just in denial about it. They think our rights and laws apply to everyone, citizens or non-citizens. It also shows that they think we owe our success to the government rather than “we the people”, which is what I thought Libertarians used to believe. After all, if you can replace the original population of this country with a new one, expecting everything to carry on the same as before, then what you are saying is that it is the system, the machine, that we owe everything to and not the unique history and culture of our own people. I must disagree, I do not think that you can take someone from a culture of theocracy, shariah law and tribalism or even large amounts of people from a culture of absolutism, dictatorship, revolutions and religious persecution and then plug them into a system founded by people from a culture of Magna Carta, 1688, Thomas Jefferson and frontiersmen and expect nothing at all to change. This is what some have called the “magic soil” argument. That all people are interchangeable but, for some reason, North America has magic soil that makes like better here no matter who the people are or what sort of history and culture has formed them prior to their arrival.

Open borders really seem to be a big deal to Libertarians this political season. It has even overpowered their supposed opposition to big government, over regulation and the “nanny state” which I thought was their worst enemy. I was really shocked when Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor-in-chief of “Reason” magazine announced that she favored the U.K. remaining in the European Union. Yes, the anti-democratic, unaccountable, massively top heavy, tax & spend, cradle to grave welfare state and government so big we will regulate absolutely everything even the shape of your cucumbers European Union! What on earth was it that could prompt the big cheese at America’s foremost libertarian periodical to support such a thing? You probably guessed it: open borders and free trade. A government bureaucracy that is so overreaching that it regulates everything from fishing to playground equipment to bananas and hair dryers, that the so-called libertarians at “Reason” can accept so long as the important principle of more non-British people being able to move to Britain is upheld. Whatever happened to smaller government guys?! Guys? Hello…?

Annoyed yet? Bear with me, there’s just a bit more. You will notice that Katherine also mentioned “free trade” along with open borders as part of the reason she supports the Westminster Parliament being shackled to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. That’s another point by itself. The European Union does not have “free trade” even among its members. Trade between member states is not really “free” at all, it is very, very heavily regulated just like your electric tea kettles, it is only that they all have the same regulations set by a central authority rather than in the past when every country did their own thing. Libertarians really seem to have gone full-blown ignorant on this subject and there is no better example than the parade of Libertarians who have come out to blast Donald Trump for being critical of our trade deals with China. The Libertarians denounce the bombastic billionaire and assure us that “free trade” is good for everyone!

Do they even know what they are saying? How can we have truly “free” trade with China when this trade comes with trade “deals” and is overseen by a “trade commission” with lots of rules and regulations governing it? Donald Trump says these trade deals are bad, which you can agree or disagree with but the Libertarians seem to be in total denial about the deals even existing! Well, I’m sorry delusional Libertarians but we do have trade deals with China, you cannot just buy and sell however you please between the two countries and what is also true, though not talked about because “they took our jobs” is easier for the masses to understand, is that China has repeatedly violated the terms of these deals and faced no consequences because of it. What do I mean? Well, here is an example that I would think Libertarians, if they believed in what they claim to believe in, would understand: private property. Libertarians are supposed to believe that private property rights are absolutely sacrosanct. Well, the Chinese do not believe that and they have stolen the intellectual private property of a great many people. Now, I would think that the free market, Libertarian answer to that would be to stop doing business with someone who rips you off like that, but, NO! They want us to go on getting ripped off because apparently their respect for private property is not as great as their devotion to globalism and having trade just for the sake of having trade I guess.

But, you may be thinking, “you’re just getting carried away Mad Monarchist, this is because the Libertarians support big business, they have always supported big, international corporations and have never made a secret of that”, well, I have news for you unnamed, anonymous, imaginary reader of this blog! As well as giving up on the welfare state, big government and private property, they are also giving up on small business in favor of big business it seems. The Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, Gary Johnson, (yes, again) has said that a Jewish baker should be forced by the government to bake a cake for Hitler’s birthday party covered in swastikas just as a Christian baker should be forced by the government to bake a cake for the homosexuals who are getting married. Individual rights? Freedom for small business owners to run their own businesses? Screw that idea! What do we look like, Libertarians?! No, sorry, this year the Libertarians have gone, way, way too far. From the conversations I have had and what I have heard from the leadership of the Libertarian Party and “Reason” magazine, the libertarian movement is not about private property rights, ending the welfare state, free markets and individual rights any more. They are for globalism, open borders, big government, regulatory regimes and allowing every heroin-addict to buy a machine gun. Good job guys.

Now, I will add that I cannot believe all libertarians are like these. As far as I know, Hans Hermann Hoppe has not gone off the rails and is still someone I have a lot of time for. Hopefully, it is just the American libertarian leadership that has lost its mind but I cannot be too optimistic. I know some great libertarians who have had more than one ‘face-palm’ moment this political season and I am sure many are just as appalled as I am, perhaps even more so as I am just on the outside looking in. Why do I even care? Well, I care because even though I have never agreed with them on everything, I have agreed with them on some things in the past and because the libertarians have represented at least a hope for what I would consider beneficial changes. They were one group of people who at least rated notice on the political radar who had a plan for a society that would have ultimately made democracy rather unnecessary and had people who were open about saying so. They were one of the few groups who, in the old days anyway, were not afraid to say that “equality” is a delusion, that an individual can be right when the majority is wrong, that democracy should not decide everything and that the successful should be applauded and emulated, not shamed and hated. It pains me to see what they have come to but, as long as they continue on their present course, they can expect no support from me. A line has been crossed.