The More Things Change, The More Things Stay the Same for Syria

As most know, recently, for the first time (or at least the first time officially admitted to) the United States has taken direct action against the Syrian government of eye-doctor turned Ba'athist dictator Bashar al-Assad. On its own, it was not terribly significant, a strike of about 60 cruise missiles from two offshore U.S. Navy destroyers on one Syrian air base near Khan Shaykhun but it was certainly not welcome news to me as I very much fear it will lead to further U.S. involvement in the Middle East and (as the archives will show) I have been against any American involvement in Syria since Obama first started toying with the idea in 2013. It is none of America's business, has no impact on American national security or national interests at all. Yes, civilians were killed, children were killed and that is sad but the "intelligence community" that is certain Assad is the guilty party ran out of credibility with me a long time ago. I wouldn't take their word that night is dark and water is wet. As far as I'm concerned, it's just the latest example of our new faith-based government where the line is, "we have the evidence, we just can't show it to you but, trust us, it's damning!"

Does that mean I am signing up to the Bashar al-Assad fan club? Not by a long shot and, frankly, I'm amazed at the likes of some of those gushing over the guy. Mr. "I invented the Alt-Right" Richard Spencer has nothing but nice things to say about Assad. For anyone on the "right" end of the political spectrum at all, this seems quite odd. Assad is the leader of the Ba'athist Party, officially described as an Arab *socialist* party and part of a coalition called the National *Progressive* Front. This is the same party that denounced Saddam Hussein (also a Ba'athist dictator) as a "fascist" when he went to war against their beloved co-religionists in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Socialist progressives who consider the word "fascist" an insult would seem rather out of step with the "Alt-Right" crowd from what I've seen. However, a little confusion is probably to be expected. People seem to be trying to fit this entire region into a western frame of mind when that just does not work and has never work as the Ba'athist regime itself and its problems illustrate. It is also why the most stable countries in the region are absolute monarchies that tend to offend liberal sensibilities.

This is because these countries operate in the traditional way for their people and culture. They are tribal, Islamic fundamentalist absolute monarchies just as they have always been going back many, many centuries, they just have private jets instead of camels these days. No matter what changes others have tried to bring to the region, the old patterns continue to prevail and only those states which have remained within those patterns have survived unscathed. Once upon a time, the whole region was one of Arab tribal monarchies ruled by Sunni princes. However, that was too old-fashioned for some and an era of leftist, socialist Arab nationalism swept the region. This was perhaps best illustrated by the United Arab Republic which consisted of Egypt and Syria coming together under one socialist government. Obviously, that little experiment did not last very long since, for one things, socialism never works and the Arabs of Egypt and the Arabs of Syria actually did not feel like they were exactly the same people after all.

The aforementioned bad blood between the socialist Ba'ath party of Syria and the socialist Ba'ath party of Iraq is another example. Why was there not ironclad solidarity between the socialist Arabs of Syria and the socialist Arabs of Iraq against the totally alien Persian theocrats? Because, once again, despite the effort at secular Arab nationalism, the older divisions remained more important. Many Syrians, particularly the Alawites (from whence the al-Assad family hails) are Shia Muslims just like the Iranians. Most Iraqis are Shia Muslims too but Saddam Hussein was not and he was in charge. Such is why Syria and Iran have been such good friends since the Sunni Muslims were removed from power and replaced by Shia Muslims. This is also why the Arab monarchies all want to see the end of Bashar al-Assad. They are Sunni Muslims and this is part of the Sunni-Shia feud that has been going on almost since Mohammed kicked off. They can get rid of their monarchies and replace them with republics, they can try to ignore past tribalism and promote Arab nationalism but the old tribal and religious divisions still persist. They are not going to change and the United States cannot force them to. The British, to their credit, had the good sense not to try.

For Russia to back the Shia and the United States to back the Sunni doesn't seem like a smart move for either country. Particularly in the west, modern liberal thinking has put religion aside but the Islamic world doesn't see it that way and the west is still the "Crusader states" as far as they're concerned. Similarly, they were calling America "the Great Satan" back in the days when Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds and Archbishop Sheen had the highest rated show on television. What is going on the Middle East and particularly Syria today is the latest manifestation of very old tribal and sectarian conflict that all outsiders would do well to stay out of. Even if the problem could be solved, the leaders we have in the western world today, with their liberal mentality, are definitely not the ones capable of doing it. And, even if you do what seems to be the "right" thing, you will never gain any credit for doing it. When the U.S. and NATO came to the rescue of the Muslim Albanians and bombed the Christian Serbs on their behalf, there was no wave of gratitude from the Muslim world. When the U.S. led a coalition to drive out a secular dictator and put the Emir of Kuwait back on his throne, it didn't mean the Islamic radicals were going to decide America wasn't all that bad after all. I still think the best thing to do is stay out of the region and keep it quarantined as best as possible.

------------------Additional Info-----------------
The Attempt at a Royalist Syria

The Strong Man or the Monarch?

It was recently asked of me what I thought of the “strong men” of the right who rose up in the last century, several of which were named, and I thought it worth answering in some detail and adding some names to the list I was given to hopefully present a better picture of my thoughts on the subject. These are those who have come to power in a country with no traditional monarch but who nonetheless remain admired by many on the right end of the political spectrum. As a proponent of “traditional authority”, which is very much out of fashion these days, it can be necessary to support someone who is less than ideal in order to move the needle in a more favorable direction. Some may be good, some may be unsavory but necessary and others may represent no more than a movement of that needle. Sometimes the best that can be said is that they are preferable to the most likely alternative. Of course, it should be obvious to all but I shall say at the outset nonetheless that my first preference is always for the legitimate monarch and nothing or no one can ever justly take their place.

First up is someone I wrote about recently, the Prime Minister of the “New State” of Portugal, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar who ruled Portugal from 1932 to 1968. For myself, I think Salazar was one of the good ones. He was certainly a man of traditional values, a staunch Catholic and one whose policies generally seemed like good ideas to me. He held the United Nations in contempt and fought to preserve the Portuguese empire overseas, taking on the forces of international communism, all of which is laudable in my book. He said he would restore the monarchy when the time was right but that time never came. Although usually described as a “fascist” dictator, his position was actually more complicated than that and there were some legitimate concerns surrounding the restoration of the monarchy. As his regime did not long survive him, I must also conclude that even if he had restored the monarchy, it might have been brought down along with his corporatist “New State”. In any event, he certainly came closer than any other post-monarchical leader of Portugal ever has. He gave King Manuel II a state funeral, lifted the ban on royals entering the country and restored their property to them, all good things. For a somewhat closer look at Salazar, read Monarchism and the Corporate State in Portugal. Again, in my view, one of the good ones.

Next on the list I was given was Admiral Miklos Horthy, regent of the king-deprived Kingdom of Hungary from 1920 to 1944. Unlike Salazar, I have very few positive things to say about Admiral Horthy. Probably the best thing I can say about him is that he was preferable to the alternative of a communist regime, which is certainly damning with faint praise. To be fair, and give credit where credit is due, it was Horthy who kicked out the communists and banned their party (he also banned the more Nazi-like Arrow Cross party) and pursued generally sound policies in as much as he sought to promote Hungarian identity and the return of Hungarian territory seized at the end of the First World War. However, any positive feelings I may have been able to muster for Horthy collapse to nothing as soon as his legitimate monarch, Emperor Charles I of Austria, who was King Charles IV of Hungary, made his first effort to return and resume his rightful place on the throne. Not only did he fail to support his king, the one he claimed to be acting on behalf of as “regent” but he actively thwarted his effort to fully restore the monarchy and this I can never forgive. True, there were some difficulties about this, but as regent none of that should have concerned him. As soon as Emperor Charles set his foot on Hungarian soil, Horthy should have stepped aside and supported His Apostolic Majesty to the best of his ability. He did not and so I would have a hard time seeing him as anything other than an outright traitor.

The third name I was given was Engelbert Dollfuss, federal chancellor and so-called “Austrofascist” dictator of Austria from 1932 to 1934. I have more time for Dollfuss than for Horthy certainly but there are some nagging issues with him. There is certainly a great deal with which I would have been in full agreement with Dollfuss and I think his regime was certainly a step in the right direction. The highly esteemed American and Catholic monarchist Charles Coulombe has said that Dollfuss was a monarchist but I cannot be so sure about that. There is just enough to make me think that he was simply being politically expedient, trying to win monarchist support without actually restoring the monarchy. Again, there is much I agree with him on and he did lift the anti-Habsburg laws passed by the first Austrian republic but I cannot help but think he did not really intend to go any farther. That said, his regime certainly was a step in the right direction as, after his assassination by the Nazis, his successor Kurt von Schuschnigg actually did agree to the restoration of the monarchy and the return of the Habsburgs only to be thwarted at the last minute by French and (mostly) British overreaction to the Italian war in Ethiopia which pushed Mussolini into the arms of Hitler, which doomed Austria as Italy had previously been the only thing stopping Hitler from taking over the country. Because of this, I have more regard for Schuschnigg that for Dollfuss when it comes to the subject of the House of Habsburg. In regards to his policies otherwise, I would have been onboard but when it comes to the monarchy, Schuschnigg acted and Dollfuss didn’t.

The last name on the list, which somewhat surprised me, was Marshal of France Philippe Petain, Chief of State for the post-republican “State of France” which operated out of Vichy from 1940 to 1944. Marshal Petain does not occupy much space in my mind and it rather surprises me that he would have any significant following today. He was never really entirely one thing or the other. For most people his collaboration with Nazi Germany has washed away his glittering reputation as a hero of World War I and forever cast him in the category of unforgivable villain. I certainly would not go that far. I can muster neither great admiration nor great hatred for Marshal Petain. In fact, while I don’t see that he did much good, the positive aspects of Petain for me rest mostly on who it is that hates him the most. The fact that he was declared a traitor by the French Republic is rather a compliment in my book. What did he do? Well, he finally laid to rest the Third Republic which makes him, to my mind, somewhat like Charlotte Corday; not a monarchist, but someone who did a service for France. He replaced the revolutionary slogan with a more sound one, rejected equality in favor of hierarchy and took many steps in the right direction. Yet, all of those steps make it all the more glaring that he did not go the whole way and restore the traditional Kingdom of France. However, it is possible the Germans would not have allowed this anyway and the German occupation stands in the way of sound and dispassionate appraisal of Petain. Such is why, again, I cannot have very strong opinions about him one way or the other. Given the German defeat and the subsequent collaborationist label given to Petain, it might have been better for the reputation of the monarchy that it was not restored.

For those I thought I would add to list, the first is Generalissimo Francisco Franco, from 1939 to 1975 the “Caudillo” of Spain. Franco was one of the good guys though as long as current mentalities hold sway he will never be given credit for it. Franco was not an ideal leader but he was certainly a necessary one. The Spanish should thank God that he decided to take action and bring down the atrocity that was the Second Republic. His promotion of the Spanish identity was good, his staunch anti-communism was good, his pushing for greater unity among the Spanish-speaking countries was good and of course it was good that he restored the monarchy, in name early on and in fact after his passing. His action in the Spanish Civil War likely saved Spain as we know it and perhaps western civilization. The republic was simply a Soviet satellite state and had the nationalists not won the war there would have been a communist foothold in western Europe and the whole continent would have been outflanked. In crushing it, Franco did the world a service. Was he perfect? No. He was a general, a military man, and ruled like one, the result being that the beneficial changes he brought to Spain were mostly only skin deep. Had he taken care to go beyond obedience and outward conformity, his party would not have lost the first post-war elections in Spain so badly. Some, I know, have blamed the King for having elections at all but, if after decades in power, Franco had done more to truly change Spain and restore the Spanish character, the elections would have resulted in a reaffirmation of the existing system and not its abandonment. As I’ve often said, Franco was like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”, he may not have been nice, his ways may not always have been pretty but, at the end of the day, we needed him on that wall.

Finally, just because there is so much obsession over him at the moment, I will add Russian President Vladimir Putin who has been in power in Russia, either as President or Prime Minister, since 1999. Far too many people tend to condemn or praise everything he does without thinking when, in fact, he’s neither as good or as bad as most like to believe. On the positive side, he’s easily the best the leader republican Russia has had (so better than the Soviet leaders and his old boss Yeltsin), he has stood up for Russia rather than selling her out as others have done and in domestic policy he has acted to protect the Russian Orthodox Church, tried to push back against the demographic decline in Russia and has put Russian national interest ahead of world opinion on a number of fronts. All good. On the negative side he has, for short term gain or even the mere appearance of it, armed and strengthened despicable regimes that have historic grudges against Russia and designs on Russian territory. As the recent terrorist attack further demonstrates, he has also allowed in or failed to stop large numbers of illegal aliens from the former Soviet republics in for cheap labor on the absurd belief that their shared Soviet past will somehow make Asiatic Muslims and Slavic Christians blend together seamlessly. He’s no worse than most western leaders in that regard but he’s certainly no better. As for the people who should actually be ruling Russia, the Romanovs, he has again taken some very positive steps but, as I’ve said before, those very steps make it all the more incomprehensible to not go the rest of the way and restore the Orthodox Russian Empire in total as it should be.

The fact that so many still defend him, no matter what, is part of the problem and it causes any potential “strong man” to take the proponents of traditional authority for granted. In other words, give them a few crumbs and they will support you even if you don’t accomplish what they claim to be their actual goal. That is my biggest problem with these types. I don’t like them making traditional conservatives “comfortable” in the artificial societies they find themselves in. What Dollfuss, Petain or Putin offer may be better but it is by no means ‘good enough’, it is not the Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of France or the Russian Empire and no one should settle for less. By all means, back those that are moving in a better direction, back them as the means to an end, but for goodness sake do not let your support be unconditional and forget what that end goal really is.
---------------------
For further reading, check these past articles:
Monarchism and the Corporate State in Portugal
Honorable Mention: Kurt von Schuschnigg
The Day Franco Restored the Monarchy
The Tragedy of the Second Spanish Republic
France: Republican By Default
The House of Hapsburg in World War II

The Livonian Brethren of the Sword

Outside of Europe in particular, it is often not realized the extent to which the crusades and the military religious orders that fought in them were largely national affairs. This may be partly because many people ignore the crusades that were not aimed at retaking the Holy Land as those were probably the most ‘inter-national’ of the crusades, yet, still more than I think most people realize, largely French. The Knights Templar, which is most famous for fighting in the crusades in the Holy Land, had a multinational membership but were, likewise, predominately French. The crusade to retake the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims was, on the other hand, an almost entirely Spanish and Portuguese affair. The military religious orders that sprang up to fight in that crusade, the longest war in history, were likewise Spanish. Perhaps the least talked about is the largely German-driven crusade against the pagans of northeastern Europe on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Those who do know about this arduous and bitterly fought struggle will likely recall the Order of the Teutonic Knights (ancestor of the later Kingdom of Prussia and originator of the oldest families of the Prussian nobility, more about them here) but less well known was another German military religious order known the Livonian Brethren of the Sword. They should not be forgotten.

Unlike their fellow Germans of the Teutonic Knights, the Livonian Brethren of the Sword were not founded in the Holy Land but right on the spot in Livonia, specifically in Riga, the capital city of what is now Latvia. The order was founded by the Bishop of Riga, also known as the Prince-Bishop of Livonia, in 1202 and gained official recognition from Pope Innocent III in 1204. Their initial aim was to convert and or conquer the pagan tribes of the region and defend the Christian community from their attacks. The groups most often engaged by the Brethren of the Sword were the Latgalians, Selonians and Livonians in the area around Riga and more broadly the coastal region of what is today Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, a region referred to at the time as Courland. As such, the order was known by several different variants of their official name. Their official name in Latin was Fratres Militiae Christi Livoniae but they were also known the Sword Brethren, The Militia of Christ of Livonia, the Livonian Brothers of the Sword, the Courland Brethren of the Sword, Christ Knights or the Order of the Porte-Glaive Knights (“Glaive” in this case likely referring back to the French for gladius or sword). Their symbol was a cross pattée over a sword, pointing down.

The knights were based at Fellin, which is today Viljandi in Estonia and they established other castles in the surrounding area with the commanders of these castles acting as the entourage of the Grand Master of the Sword Brethren. Officially, they were subject to the Catholic bishops, beginning with their founder Bishop Albert of Riga, however the Sword Brethren were an extremely hard fighting and strong-willed group of warriors so it soon became the case that their submission to the bishops was rather nominal as they often acted on their own. In the course of the Livonian Crusade, they quickly gained quite a reputation for ferocity and reckless courage as well as being rather unruly and difficult to control. They would also, at times, make agreements with neighboring monarchies as the situation dictated such as in 1218 when Bishop Albert called on King Valdemar II of Denmark for assistance, though in the end this amounted to little more than the Danes conquering northern Estonia for themselves. In 1232 Pope Gregory IX called on the Sword Brethren to aid in the defense of Finland from attacks by the Republic of Novgorod though no accounts of their activities on this front have survived. Ultimately this would result in a Swedish-led crusade that would see Finland united with the Kingdom of Sweden for the first time.

Over time, the many hard fought battles of the Sword Brethren saw threats from the east decreased and their focus moved toward the south and the Lithuanians and Semigallians (aka the Samogitians). This resulted in what was, in many ways, the Waterloo of the Sword Brethren with the Battle of Saule on September 22, 1236. Grand Master Volkwin led between 50 to 60 knights along with other troops amounting to 3,000 men against 5,000 pagan Samogitians led by their Duke Vykintas. The Christian forces were defeated and lost almost their entire army, some estimates putting losses at 2,700. Grand Master Volkwin died in battle and the Sword Brethren were wiped out as an effective, independent fighting force. Likewise, in the aftermath, other groups, previously conquered by the Brethren, saw their chance and rose up in rebellion. Latvia and Lithuania still mark the anniversary of this battle as a national holiday, not long ago jointly declaring it the ‘Day of Baltic Unity’.

This was, practically speaking, the end of the Livonian Brethren of the Sword. They would never be an independent military religious order again. However, those who survived the ordeal carried on, faithful to their vows, and were absorbed into the Teutonic Knights, retaining their traditions and leaders. As a branch of the Teutonic Knights they were known as the Livonian Order and still had their own Master though he was subject to the Teutonic Grand Master. Thirty years of fighting by the Sword Brethren had been brought to ruin by their defeat at Saule, however, as the autonomous Livonian Order within the Teutonic Knights, they reconquered Courland, Livonia and Semigallia, eventually buying the Duchy of Estonia from King Valdemar IV of Denmark after a devastating loss north of Riga at the hands of the Lithuanians, including, again, the death of their Master Bruno in 1298. As a result, two groups emerged and, due to their autonomy, they survived the secularization of the Teutonic Knights by Albert of Brandenburg fallowing his adoption of Lutheranism in 1525.

The Livonian Order was pushed farther back towards Estonia, where their comrades were based, and in 1453 joined together in the Livonian Confederation. This gave the Catholic remnant in the region some measure of unity and hope for self-defense but their enemies were many and increasing. The pagans may have been gone but Lutherans to the south and the Russian Orthodox to the east were constant threats. In 1560 they were again almost wiped out by a massive attack by Muscovite Russia, yet some still remained and, determined as ever, they still tried to carry on, seeking out and ultimately obtaining the patronage of Sigismund II Augustus, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. However, not long after, the Livonian Order went the way of the Teutonic Knights when their Master, Gotthard Kettler, converted to Lutheranism and thereafter secularized the order. That proved the final end of the last remnants of what had once been the Brethren of the Sword. The lands they retained were quickly taken over by neighboring states and the order ceased to exist.

A Few Thoughts on "Independence"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monarch Profile: Emperor Leopold II

His Royal Highness Peter Leopold Josef Anton Joachim Pius Gotthard von Habsburg-Lothringen, Prince Imperial and Archduke of Austria, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia, Prince of Tuscany was born in Vienna, Austria on May 5, 1747 the ninth child and third son of Emperor-Elect Francis Stephen and Empress Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary. When his older brother, Archduke Charles, died of smallpox early in life in 1761 he became next in line for the Habsburg throne after his eldest brother who would be Emperor Joseph II. As it was not expected that he would inherit the numerous thrones of the House of Habsburg, as a child he was first given an education aimed at his joining the priesthood. However, even while quite young he did not take well to his religious education and it soon became clear he was not cut out to be a priest. Instead, it was decided to ‘farm him out’ to Italy and as a child he was engaged to marry the heiress of the Duchy of Modena. This never came to be but Italy was still in his future.

In an effort to keep as much of Italy within the Habsburg family as possible, an agreement was made to marry him to the Infanta Maria Luisa of Spain, daughter of His Catholic Majesty King Carlos III, and make him heir to the Grand Duchy of Tuscany which was then held by his father. As such, when Francis Stephan died in 1765 and his older brother became Emperor Joseph II, Archduke Leopold became the Grand Duke of Tuscany, though even as a young man he had little to do. His formidable mother, Empress Maria Theresa, appointed most of the officials who actually administered the country and his brother the Emperor also made sure that Tuscany stayed in step with the rest of the Habsburg lands. As such he had little to do in Florence and, unfortunately, occupied much of his time with a string of extramarital affairs. However, he was not without ambition and ideas of his own and in 1770 he was able to free himself from Vienna and take matters in hand himself.

After taking power into his own hands, Grand Duke Leopold lowered taxes, enacted a public works program, streamlined the bureaucracy, cut government regulations, abolished the death penalty and tried to appropriate the property of the Church, which he did not succeed at but which was illustrative of his problems with the Catholic hierarchy and the source of considerable tensions between himself and the Pope. He was not very popular with his Italian subjects, however, as his entire personality was very much at odds with the culture of Tuscany. He was austere, private, preferred to live simply and, like his brother, wanted rationality in all things. His people rather liked displays of pageantry, grandeur and had become used to the way things had been since the days of the Medici. There were corruptions, but they were corruptions the people had become comfortable with and the tension with the Church also caused problems. All in all, Leopold was simply too German or Austrian for his very Italian subjects. His improvements of public health, provision for the mentally ill and abolition of corporal punishment were things most people approved of, but he simply did not act like a typical Italian prince was expected to. Where he was expected to be grand, lavish and vibrant, he was plain, not very sociable and rather reclusive.

The family life of Leopold II was rather similar. His Spanish Bourbon wife, Maria Luisa, was rather more devoutly religious than he was but she was also a devoted, tolerant wife who was very supportive of her husband, ignored his numerous affairs and seemed genuinely attached to him despite her being more of the warm and friendly type and he being more of the cold, silent type. Nonetheless, their marriage, odd as it looked, seemed to work for them as they had sixteen children together, securing the future of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty. As far as his older brother was concerned, Leopold and Joseph were as close as two siblings of their nature could be. Leopold was supportive of his brother, approved of his policies and the two were essentially on the same page on most any issue. He had genuine concern for him, yet was still cold and calculating enough to keep his distance from Joseph II over policies which were unpopular, even though Leopold himself approved of them. At the end of his reign, Joseph II was beset by problems; unrest in Belgium, unrest in Hungary, tensions with the Church, opposition to his policy of Germanization, but when he was on his deathbed and tried to have his younger brother take over as regent, Leopold refused and it was some time after the death of Emperor Joseph II that Leopold left Florence for Vienna in 1790.

Once he became Emperor-Elect Leopold II of the Holy Roman Empire/First German Reich, Leopold became one of those monarchs who falls between the two larger personalities. Historians tend to give little attention to his reign, Leopold II serving as little more than a temporary bridge between the reigns of Emperor Joseph II and Emperor Francis II (later Francis I of Austria). Yet, Leopold II came along at a critical time in the history of Europe and western civilization in general. The French Revolution was building steam, and without France, Austria had no support against the growing powers of Prussia to the north and Russia to the east. The Ottoman Turks were also a constant irritant to the south. Within the empire, there was also unrest among the Hungarians, Bohemians, Belgians, the clergy and the nobility. Emperor Leopold II tried to steer a middle course, repealing just enough of the policies of his autocratic brother to gain support but holding to most of the same principles.

Leopold II adopted a ‘divide an conquer’ strategy to restore imperial rule over Belgium, then secured a pact with the King of Prussia to oppose the revolution in France. However, this was an agreement neither had any intention of acting on, at least for the time being, but it served to prevent any moves by Russia in the east while the German states were engaged in the west. He arranged a truce with the Turks to put off any trouble on that front and made renewed efforts at friendship with the British, aided by the fact that his brother Emperor Joseph II had been the most vociferous European monarch in condemning the recent rebellion in the British colonies in America. He relented on some of his brother’s efforts to bring “rationality” to Catholicism but still maintained state controls over the Church and papal pronouncements. He maintained many of the public services of his brother but revoked emancipation and returned some peasants to serfdom in order to win back the support of the Bohemian nobility. He placated the Hungarians by having a Hungarian coronation (which his brother had never done) and granting the Magyar nobles a more prominent voice in national affairs, seen by some as the first step toward the eventual “dual-monarchy”.

Naturally, the growing French Revolution increasingly occupied the mind of the crowned heads of Europe. Emperor Leopold II had taken no action against the revolutionaries, at times seemed to think the situation had resolved itself with King Louis’ forced acceptance of a constitutional monarchy, yet later Leopold called for monarchist solidarity in opposing the Revolution after the arrest of the French King and Queen. However, again, he took no action, refusing to break his scheduled priorities and focusing on his peace negotiations with the Turks. The situation in France was worsening by the day when Emperor Leopold II suddenly dropped dead in Vienna in March of 1792 after only two years on the imperial throne, passing the Habsburg dominions to his son who became Emperor Francis II, later Emperor Francis I of Austria. It would be left to him to be the primary continental opposition to the forces of the French Revolution, the empire of Napoleon and to lead the forces of counterrevolution in Europe in the Nineteenth Century.

All in all, Emperor Leopold II did not make much of an impression during his reign. Perhaps, had he reigned for more than two years, he would be viewed differently. However, as it was, he had much the same views as his brother and predecessor, while being more politically flexible, less autocratic and more inclined to be pragmatic. This had made him, in turn, more criticized by both ends of the political spectrum. Still, at a time when Europe was on the brink of upheavals that would be almost unprecedented, Emperor Leopold II did secure his countries, ending less important problems to focus on the growing threat of revolution and took the first steps towards an alliance of the crowned heads of Europe to stand opposed to the spread of carnivorous republicanism. He tended not to be a very likable man but no one could call him an incapable one.

Mad Rant: The Arbitrary Rule of Zuckerberg

Yesterday, during the day, I decided to check Facebook on my phone. I had to log-in again and was told that a post of mine had been removed for “violating community standards”. I was warned that my page could be deleted if this sort of atrocity happened again. Before being allowed to continue logging-in I was obliged to review the “community standards”. No big deal, right? In the grand scheme of things, no, but it did infuriate me as the sort of petty tyranny common in tin-pot dictatorships. I was annoyed because it first took a while to find out exactly what post had been removed. Finally, I found out it was a picture, since needless drama long ago convinced me to limit my Facebook activity to posting royal pictures and little to nothing else, and that picture was a World War I postcard of German/Prussian Crown Prince Wilhelm. I include, at great risk of causing offense it seems, the picture here so that everyone can see what was so atrocious as to warrant my being singled out for a severe reprimand and threat from Mr. Zuckerberg. Take a good look at it. -->

Now, if you are like me (and if so, you have my sympathies), you may be wondering just what it is about this picture that was offensive. You see, that is another part of the problem that makes this infuriating. FB will tell you, after some clicking around, what image is the cause of your misfortune, but they will not tell you exactly what about it is offensive. So, what is the point of the warning? How can you take care to never do wrong again if you do not know what you did wrong in the first place? I have seen some pictures of the Crown Prince that I could imagine someone complaining about; pictures of him in his NSKK uniform which many mistake for a Nazi Brownshirt outfit or pictures of him in his regimental “Death’s Head” Hussar uniform which some have mistaken for an SS uniform. As you can see, this is neither of those. This is a standard Imperial Germany army uniform for general officers. The only thing I could possibly come up with is the Iron Cross he is wearing. It doesn’t make sense but that is the only thing I could imagine that would be even recognizable to the public. Is the uniform that distinctive? The Order of the Black Eagle Star? How many could even recognize the Crown Prince himself?

It would of course be so much easier if FB would say, explicitly, what rule it was that I violated with this picture. But they don’t. They tell you to review their “community standards” none of which include anything explicit about what is not allowed to be posted. There is a lot of vague talk about being nice and promoting “diversity” (whatever that means) but it is all exactly that; *vague*. There is nothing concrete, nothing specific. I can only assume, since they will not tell me, that it was the Iron Cross medal that was the problem based on the fact that it was later used during the Nazi period and, since the swastika has been banned in so many places, the Iron Cross is often used to replace the swastika in artwork about the World War II period. It is not that different from the way that some have started to call for the banning of the old Imperial German ensign since many neo-Nazis took to displaying it since their beloved Nazi flag is outlawed. As such, many of the symbols of Imperial Germany are now seen as being synonymous with Nazi Germany even though they long pre-date the Nazi era. The Iron Cross, for example, originated in the 19th Century during the Napoleonic Wars.

Now, again, I could be wrong about what the actual problem with the picture was but divining that is made even more difficult due to the fact that whatever these vague “community standards” are, they are not consistently enforced. It is entirely arbitrary and depends on what gets reported and who is doing the reviewing. This is a perfect example of the distinction I have often pointed out that Bishop Bossuet talked about in his defense of absolute monarchy from a Catholic, Biblical basis. He argued for absolute power but made a distinction between absolute power and arbitrary power. A monarch, Bossuet argued, should have absolute power but no one should have arbitrary power as that would mean that no one is ever safe, no one would ever know if they are in compliance or not. Similarly, FB is, as the left with their selective support for private property and big business, never tires of pointing out, is a private entity and as such has absolute power over what is or is not allowed on their site. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is their vague and arbitrarily enforced “community standards” that make it next to impossible to know what exactly is or is not allowed.

You see, there are a number of other pictures I have posted that, assuming someone mistook this picture of the Crown Prince for something Nazi-related, that one would think would be more likely to violate “community standards” than this one. I have posted a few pictures of German princes in Nazi-era German army or air force uniforms. I have posted a picture of the sultans of Malaysia alongside a Japanese general who was (quite unjustly) executed as a war criminal. Yet, for some reason, nothing was said or done about those but a picture of the last German Crown Prince is deleted. Likewise, I have posted a number of pictures of German royals wearing one or more Iron Crosses. These were awarded fairly freely in the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War and World War I before the Nazis ever came along and since most German princes served in the military, German monarchs and princes in uniforms with this decoration are extremely common.

There is an agenda at work here, though I doubt traditional, overt reactionaries are significant enough to be on their radar, and that is why this has to be arbitrary. So, for example, FB or Twitter could not ban the swastika completely or else they would have to ban all the left-wing accounts that put swastikas on Donald Trump or Marine LePen. The left actually was confronted this problem when everyone in the United States started banning the Confederate flag. Some leftists started to complain because they wanted to buy a Confederate flag to take to a street demonstration to burn it and trample on it to show how virtuous they are, but found out it was no longer so easy to get a hold of. You may have noticed the same thing regarded accusations of racism. Not all that long ago it was the left that said they wanted a “colorblind” society, because race was just a “social construct” after all but now, they are saying that it is racist to say that you are colorblind or deny that race is real because they actually do want policies that favor one race over another so long as it is the race that supports them. So, it’s only racist, sexist or in any way offensive when one side does it but not when they do it. Hence, the new rule of liberalism is that their power must be arbitrary.

As I have mentioned many times before, this is where the “Anti-fascist” crowd is working every day to prove the original Fascist, Mussolini, right in what he said about the Liberals. He said that they love to talk about freedom, liberty and rights but that these wonderful things are only for them and their supporters, not for their enemies. It has become so blatant and so common these days that even the mainstream, milquetoast conservatives are starting to take notice. The mask is coming off, I think because the left is so outrage-driven that they have worked themselves up into a frenzy so that, as Mark Steyn recently said, “You’re Hitler, I’m Hitler, everybody’s Hitler”, they know nothing about history or any subject really, all they know about Hitler is that he was a bad guy and anyone who is not one of them must be Hitler. They get offended, they go straight to Hitler, no passing “Go” and no collecting 200 dollars. Free speech? Sure, free speech for them to call you a Nazi but no free speech for you to say you would like to enforce immigration laws or post a picture of the German Kaiser’s firstborn on Facebook. Free elections? Sure, free elections so long as their side wins. If not, have the people vote again until they give the “right” answer. Freedom of association? Sure, if you are in the fashion business and don’t want to dress Melania Trump, that’s fine. But if you’re in the wedding cake business and don’t want to bake a cake for the lesbian biker couple down the street, your life is as good as ruined. It’s becoming more clear everyday and I hope more people start to wake up and come to their senses because it is making me a very, …Mad Monarchist.

An Overview of the Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam

The Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam has probably suffered from more unjust bad press than any other in the thousands of years of Vietnamese history. Part of this is because it was the last imperial dynasty, the most recent and thus the most intensely studied (though still nowhere near as much as it should be) and thus with greater coverage comes greater amounts of opinions and judgments, including negative and unfair ones. However, I have no doubt the biggest reason for the excessive and undue criticism of the Nguyen reign is simply because it was the last imperial dynasty and what came after it was a totally foreign system of government, based on a totally foreign ideology and, as in any such situation, those who usurped power from the Nguyen emperors had to make them look as bad as possible in order to justify their own treason and radical transformation of the “Land of the Soaring Dragon”. The last major force to stand by the Nguyen was the French but that was both a blessing and a curse as the Nguyen reign largely coincided with the period of French colonial rule and has, to date, remained tainted by it, whether rightly or wrongly.

Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Nguyen Dynasty and not just because they were the last incarnation of traditional monarchy in Vietnam but because I have seen and known and talked to people on just about every side of the issue when the monarchy came down and Vietnam came apart. The Nguyen emperors, despite what their detractors say, were never negligent. One can look back with the benefit of hindsight and say they made mistakes but in every case one can see very easily, if one cares to, why they acted the way they did. The fact is that they were faced with a succession of insoluble problems that were unprecedented in the very long history of the Vietnamese nation. Once they became, not by choice, entwined with the French, it is also quite clear that the French made some serious errors in their approach to Vietnam. Yet, a careful study of those involved will show that many in the French colonial leadership were themselves acting in the way they thought best and were truly mystified by the increasing opposition to their presence in Vietnam.

Having looked at all twelve (or thirteen depending on how one chooses to number them) emperors of the Nguyen dynasty, I hope it will be easier to see that the negative interpretation given to their reign is a largely unfair one. The Nguyen era was one of great color, drama, heroism and tragedy with the Vietnamese emperors increasingly without exception being forced to choose between a selection of bad options. Starting with Emperor Gia Long, we see a prince who endured incredible hardships, who showed extreme tenacity and who rose, like a phoenix from the ashes, to reunite his country and establish a powerful empire. Today, he is often criticized for not modernizing and strengthening his country in preparation for the arrival of the French. However, he had spent his entire life fighting and was finally victorious and he decided, not unreasonably, that his country needed stability, a return to traditional values and an emphasis on infrastructure rather than a powerful military. Even with this emphasis, given the amount of peasant unrest that occurred, it would seem hard for any reasonable observer to find much fault in his priorities.

Under Emperor Minh Mang, Vietnam, or “The Great South”, reached a high point in its long history, yet he as well as his successors Thieu Tri and Tu Duc have had their reigns tainted by the persecution of Christians. There were some horrific acts of persecution to be sure, however, the Nguyen emperors were not the bloodthirsty beasts they were often portrayed as. They didn’t really want to kill Christians, they simply wanted to frighten them into leaving their country, fearing, and not unjustly so, that the colonizers would come after the missionaries. The Nguyen emperors also knew the situation was dangerous and were not ignorant of world affairs which is why they tried to time crackdowns to coincide with events in Europe that, they hoped, would ensure the French were too involved elsewhere to move against them. Ultimately, as we know, this did not work and the French armies arrived.

At that point, under Emperor Tu Duc, the Vietnamese fought back fiercely and rightly so. The Christians in Vietnam had, all too often, strayed for spiritual matters into the political sphere and attached themselves to rebel groups or rivals for the throne. They should not have done this and to my mind have little room to complain when they were then treated as enemies by the imperial court. However, it was the native anti-Nguyen dynasty forces which really doomed independent Vietnam and they should be held to blame more than Tu Duc and his immediate successors. The Nguyen imperial armies were doing quite well against the French who had no experience fighting in Southeast Asia and were dropping like flies from disease and heat exhaustion in the sweltering country. However, a native rebellion which aimed to take down the dynasty then rose up and the emperor could not effectively combat both. He recognized that while the French were demanding certain concessions and favorable treatment and so on, they were not threatening to tear down the dynasty as the rebels were. Like any good Confucian, upholding filial piety, Tu Duc came to terms with the French and turned his army on the rebels to preserve his dynasty.

A period of chaos ensued caused by Tu Duc having no sons of his own and by the French pressing for greater control over more and more of the country. Vietnam had three emperors in one year, 1883, two of which were murdered and one forced to commit suicide. The French, of course, took full advantage of this confusion to strengthen their own position and were able to pose as the guardians of the emperors against the scheming mandarins who were trying to usurp or murder them. In the years that followed, some emperors opposed the French (Ham Nghi, Thanh Thai, Duy Tan) and all ended up exiled while others cooperated, albeit always more grudgingly than is generally known (Dong Khanh, Khai Dinh) and were able to retain their position. Personally, I can sympathize with both positions. On the one hand, the French were overreaching and many educated Vietnamese who appreciated the advancements France brought to their country still pressed for them to simply adhere to the protectorate treaty they had agreed to and to stop violating it. It is understandable that the Vietnamese would want to fight to restore their independence. However, they could never win and I can also understand those who cooperated with the French, who recognized that resistance would see them destroyed and that taking the time to strengthen the monarchy and use more subtle methods with the French to obtain similar goals was the wiser policy.

Looking particularly at the period of the last two Nguyen emperors, Khai Dinh and Bao Dai, both of whom were as cooperative as possible with the French, we can see that the French should have been more faithful to the protectorate treaty and stopped taking power in local government at the expense of the emperor. They assumed that the deference showed him and the sacrosanct nature of his spiritual position was sufficient to maintain his lofty place with the public. This was not so and the French had a hard time dealing with this, some sincerely wondering why the emperors were so unpopular with certain segments of society, it never even occurring to them that *they* were the reason and that monarchs who were most agreeable to the French were often the most ridiculed by the unhappy public.

When the traditional monarchy came to an end, in the last year of World War II, the dynasty was again placed in an impossible position. Starting out under the control of the French, they were then offered independence under the control of the Japanese. Realistically, there was nothing the emperor could do but go along with this and take the opportunity that presented itself. The brief months of the Japanese-sponsored Empire of Vietnam, offered immense promise if only it had been adhered to and maintained. By the time it was established, the Japanese were clearly fighting a losing battle and would soon be gone. If all had come together at that point, Vietnam could have emerged as an independent power, maintaining their existing, traditional system (which, to their credit, the French had never done away with) and avoiding the decades of fratricidal warfare that followed. However, that was not to be and, again, it was through no fault of the dynasty.

The French Republic had done themselves no favors by inculcating the educated Vietnamese with the perverse values of the Revolution. The Vietnamese could see as well as anyone that, not only did “liberty, equality and brotherhood” run contrary to their own traditional form of government but the French republicans themselves did not live up to it in their dealings with the Vietnamese. During the war years, prior to the Japanese takeover, there was a much more harmonious situation between the values espoused by Vichy France, particularly the writings of Charles Maurras, and the traditional values of Imperial Vietnam. That, however, proved short-lived. Added to this volatile situation was the American OSS, forerunner of the CIA, which showed its usual lack of foresight in arming and training the VietMinh dissidents with the intention of their fighting the Japanese. As it happened, they had little need to ever fight the Japanese who were soon withdrawn but this communist-led movement would go on to bring down the traditional monarchy in the “August Revolution” of 1945 and thereafter plague the French and later the Americans in the new form of the VietCong.

Emperor Bao Dai gave up his throne in 1945, having little to no choice given the situation but soon realized that the new republican government, led by Ho Chi Minh, was a total lie and he soon escaped from them. When the French returned, the former Emperor and the forces of France were undoubtedly on the side of the angels and though the French could have handled things better, they were undone by a lack of devotion to the struggle at home where they were undermined by pro-communist elements as well as a lack of solidarity and sufficient support from the British and Americans on the world stage. The French war in Vietnam was far more critical than the one fought later by the United States. It was that war which determined whether or not the communist clique in North Vietnam would be recognized as a legitimate government and which determined whether or not the Nguyen dynasty would continue to play a leadership role in Vietnam.

For a very realistic and dispassionate look at the opportunity that was squandered by those who refused to support the last Emperor of Vietnam, I highly recommend the book “Background to Betrayal” by Hilaire du Berrier, written by an American who does not hesitate to point out the mistakes made by his own countrymen in Indochina. When the French war did come to an end, America and Emperor Bao Dai were on the same side and both boycotted the peace agreement, rightly seeing it as nothing more than the prelude to an unopposed communist takeover of the country. The U.S.A. did not, as we know, keep faith with Vietnam, though they fought the good fight there, and after the downfall of Nixon the Democrats took control of Congress and refused to keep faith with South Vietnam altogether, abandoning the regime they themselves had first sponsored. The Emperor, the last reigning member of his dynasty, was powerless and exiled, able to do no more than urge his people to stop killing each other and come together but it was too late for that. The poison of revolutionary republicanism and western political ideologies had done their work well and few even bothered to listen to him.

All in all, the story of the last imperial dynasty in Vietnam is a tragic one more than anything else. Should the country ever come to its senses and return to its traditional ways, it would be keeping with precedent to elevate a new dynasty. However, I have a hard time imagining that because the Nguyen have been treated so unfairly. It would be my wish to see them restored, to see the narrative corrected and all those who spread the lies and slander about them to be forced to recant. That, however, is indulgent fantasizing, which I freely admit. As stated at the outset, those who maintain the “official” historical accounts of the Nguyen today are those who usurped and displaced them and so their narrative is unlikely to ever change. However, I hope people will at least be able to see that their view is tainted by self-preservation and will take a fresh look and a more dispassionate one at the last imperial dynasty of Vietnam, to whom the Vietnamese owe everything from their national dress to the very name of their country, and realize that they were, on the whole, a dynasty of patriots who did the best they could under very difficult and unprecedented conditions.

Emperors of the Nguyen Dynasty

I     Gia Long
II    Minh Mang
III   Thieu Tri
IV   Tu Duc
       Duc Duc
V    Hiep Hoa
VI   Kien Phuc
VII  Ham Nghi
VIII Dong Khanh
IX   Thanh Thai
X    Duy Tan
XI   Khai Dinh
XII  Bao Dai


"The sky is still there. 
So are the Earth and the dynasty.
We wish long life to the Emperor"

Mad Rant: A British Terrorist

As I am sure all know there was recently another terrorist attack in London. The terrorist was killed by the police but not before taking the lives of a number of innocents. The authorities took their time to release the identity of the villain but, as was no surprise to most, his name was Khalid Masood, an Islamic radical not unknown to the authorities, from Kent. Yes, from Kent, so that the mindless drones on television can tell us this was a "British" terrorist and not in immigrant or refugee. He has and will be endlessly referred to as a "British citizen" and there is from start to finish absolutely nothing about this whole dirty business that I do not find positively infuriating!

In the first place is the man himself and what he is about. He is a vicious, cowardly, hypocritical dog who deserved far worse than he received. The Islamic State was quick to claim him as one of their own, which is well enough as we can see what sort of spineless pigs they consider "holy warriors". He had not the courage of conviction, otherwise he would not have lived his life submitting to a Christian monarch and, inevitably to some degree or other, accepted subsidy from Her Majesty. He was a coward living a lie who ended his life, not in an honorable act of combat but in a cowardly attack on helpless civilians.

Then there is the media description of him, Khalid Masood, the "British" citizen. Personally, the very phrase 'British citizen' rather than 'British subject' still unsettles me but to call him "British" is to point again to the dishonesty of this pig. His real name, according to The Telegraph, was Adrian Elms and he was a convert to Islam. Neighbors said he grew his beard out and wore Islamic white robes at times. Now, this can be a little tricky because the western media is in the habit of referring to people as being of a certain nationality simply because of where they were born or what sort of paperwork they have on file rather than according to the blood in their veins. And, this man was known by several different aliases during his recurring encounters with the police. This is a purely European problem. If HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, whose ancestry can be traced back to the Saxon Kings of England, were to have been born in Shanghai, it would not make him Chinese and every single one of the billion people in China would find the very notion absurd. The average peasant in the interior of China has rather more common sense than European or North American television personalities.

However, given the information at hand at the moment, let us assume this man began his life as English as fish and chips. It certainly does not sound like he considered himself British. Rather, it sounds like someone forsaking his forebears to adopt the religion and culture of another people. It sounds, again, like someone living a lie. Again, had he any shred of decency, if he felt so strongly about being a Muslim, he should have renounced his British "citizenship" and moved to an Islamic country. But, of course, everything is so upside down today and our duly elected leaders so infantile and deluded that it would be considered cruel and unusual to even suggest such a thing.

Indeed, as soon as the attack was over, the British Prime Minister was quick to take to the television to say that this pig had made his attack in London, "where people of all nationalities, religions and cultures come together to celebrate the values of liberty, democracy and freedom of speech." Hearing that, one might wonder just who it was who won the war against the French Revolutionaries. She also said that the attack was an attack on the values of the Westminster Parliament, which she described as, "democracy, freedom, human rights, the rule of law". Now, I have no doubt that Theresa May is to be preferred to Comrade Corbyn but what a load of utterly contemptible nonsense! Democracy? Is the United Kingdom a democracy? Honestly, I am asking because they cannot seem to make up their mind on this point. Has Britain left the European Union yet? Freedom? Seems to be plenty of freedom for some people but not so much for others, like those who would have said, as I would have, that this murderous pig had no business being in Britain long before today. Human rights? As defined by who? Every tyranny on earth claims to love them. The rule of law? Please. The rule of law has totally evaporated in liberal societies because everything is now partisan, everything is political and the rule of law only applies to your political enemies. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also believes in the rule of law, the rule of Islamic law and they at least make no bones about it.

All of this was like salt on an open wound and then, later, to hear the Prime Minister again take the line spouted by Cameron, Blair, Obama and Bush that this attack, just like all the others in a long line before it, has nothing to do with Islam at all. Then there was the parade of Labour MPs, many Muslims themselves, doing everything they can to shield the "values" of the perpetrator of this crime. We may be living in the most deluded generation in the whole of human history, with leaders coming out in the immediate aftermath of such an attack praising the very poison that has allowed this pig to be about his murderous work. It is disgusting, it is sickening and it is infuriating and it makes me a very, VERY ... Mad Monarchist.