The Queen

I saw The Queen (directed by Peter Frears) last week. I thought I'd share my thoughts about the movie. (Some modest spoilers are included in this review)

Firstly, I must say that I genuinely enjoyed this movie. It was well written, and well acted.

I was a little concerned that it would turn into an anti-monarchist movie, but I do not think it was.

It starts out with the election of the young Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is portrayed as a young and dashing politician, largely unfamiliar with his own country's protocols when dealing with the monarch. He wants to present himself as "the great modernizer," bringing "a breath of fresh air into old institutions." He comes across as a bit of an anti-monarchist. His wife, Cherie Blair, certainly appears to be anti-monarchist, speaking of the Queen "up there on her 40,000 acres" and not paying taxes on her immense income.

When the former Princess of Wales, Diana, dies in a Paris car accident, the royal family is plunged into a crisis it is ill prepared to face. The populace, along with the Prime Minister, wants the Queen to buck tradition to show respect for Diana, while the royal family (with the exception of Charles) wants to hold steady to royal tradition. This crisis ends with a showdown between Blair and Elizabeth, whereby Blair all but demands the Queen give in.

I enjoyed watching the transformation of Blair as "the great modernizer" to a man who comes to support the Queen, even getting into a shouting match with a member of his own staff over Diana, a woman "who threw everything that family gave to her in their faces" (a bit of a paraphrase from memory).

Perhaps the most endearing aspect of the movie is that it shows Elizabeth as a human being, a woman who by her very nature is unused to public displays of emotion, and a part of an institution that by its very nature is slow to change in a culture that demands it. She is a woman whose greatest desire is to serve her people and God to the best of her abilities. A woman who is the Sovereign of a nation, yet overshadowed by her son's ex-wife.

I heartily recommend this movie to all monarchists.

The People Have Spoken...

...And the Republicans have lost. Rather than gloat (and what is there to gloat about when we have Democrats leading this nation?), all I have to say is that I hope the Republicans learn their lesson.

This Monarchist's Vote

Some monarchists do not believe in the principal of popular elections, and thus do not vote. Other monarchists vote, for a wide range of reasons. This monarchist does vote. Let me tell you about my vote this year.

Washington state now votes entirely by mail-in ballots, so I actually voted about two weeks ago. How did I vote? I for one do not mind people asking me for whom or how I vote. There were several state and local measures and initiatives that I voted on. I however did not vote for a single political candidate this election. In the primary election, the Republican candidate for senate who actually has a real and substantive pro-life position did not win the primary (no surprise there). The Republican candidate for senate that did win (Mike McGavick) has the same "pro-life" views that Bush has ("We must change the hearts and minds of Americans rather than overturn Roe v. Wade" and "Abortion should be an option"). Which means that he really isn't pro-life. It's a stick he throws at his conservative base, and he knows that since his opponent has an even more liberal view of abortion (on demand), his base will vote for him. All other candidates didn't even address the abortion issue.

So this is the situation I face. We have an immoral, unjust war in Iraq (supported by both parties), a biased, Zionist foreign policy in the Middle-East (overwhelmingly supported by both parties), abortion on demand (the Democrats support it, the Republicans won't do anything about it), and increasing demand for government supported embryonic stem cell research (the Democrats support it, and with the Republicans lack of a pro-life past we can't trust them). So what should we do? The Democratic party is out of the question. The Republican party has failed us pro-lifers, and the only way we can make them pay is to not vote for them. In this case, you can make your voice heard by remaining silent. Get out there and vote, but only for local and state measures and initiatives. Don't vote Republican, and don't vote Democrat. Use your right to vote by not voting for either party. To quote Richard Pryor in the movie Brewster's Millions vote for "None of the Above!"

Last Sunday in October:

The Feast of the Kingship of Our Lord

Collect of the Mass of this day:

Almighty everlasting God, who in Thy beloved Son,

King of the whole world, hast willed to restore

all things anew, grant in Thy mercy that all the

families of nations, rent asunder by the wound of sin,

may be subjected to to His most gentle rule. Who liveth.

"Arrogance and Stupidity"

Alberto Fernandez, the director of the press and public diplomacy office in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs for the United States State Department was recently interviewed (Oct. 21, 2006) on the Arab network Al-Jazeera. In the interview he stated: "We tried to do our best [in Iraq], but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," (see article here).

Apparently Mr. Fernandez has apologized for his comments, stating that he seriously misspoke and these comments do not represent his views nor that of the State Department (gathered from various news channels and articles I have seen/read). I think he was right the first time; America was arrogant and stupid to invade Iraq. My guess is that he came under pressure from his neo-con bosses. Unless Americans, especially politicians, are willing to admit we were wrong to invade Iraq, I don't see how we can ever overcome this sad chapter in our history.

Nuclear North Korea

The Communist government of North Korea announced that it successfully carried out a test of a nuclear weapon on October 9, 2006 (01:36 UTC). I must confess that I was glued to the TV last night watching news reports of this story. This incident concerns me, as it does most governments in the world. The fact that it appears that North Korea now has "the bomb" scares me, and I wish it never had happened. But I nonetheless thought I'd comment on the situation from a larger perspective.

According to some news reports I heard last night, the reasoning behind the North Koreans' desire to have nuclear weapons is fear of U.S. aggression. Some member of the North Korean government was supposed to have said (I'm going from memory and paraphrasing here) that if Saddam Hussein had the bomb, he'd still be in power. Is this true? I think so. The U.S. invaded Iraq based on either lies or faulty intelligence (I lean toward the lies option), with the hope of taking out Saddam before he attacks us. If Saddam had nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have risked nuclear war by invading Iraq. No one, not even the U.S. wants an all-out nuclear war, so we would not have invaded Iraq under this hypothetical.

Now that North Korea apparently has nuclear weapons, the U.S. will be much more hesitant to show any overtly aggressive behavior towards North Korea because of the treat of a nuclear attack. Kim Jong-il can remain in power with confidence. Were his actions justified? Morally, no, they were not. All nations have a duty to avoid nuclear proliferation due to the possible (and horrible) consequences. From a strictly political standpoint, one can understand the concerns of Kim Jong-il. The U.S. under the Bush administration has a history of unjust aggression against those it considers its enemies, and one could argue that Kim Jong-il was only trying to make sure the U.S. won't invade North Korea.

One could also argue this point: Why shouldn't North Korea have the bomb? The U.S., Britain, and Israel all have it. Why shouldn't North Korea have it? "North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons," a neo-con might respond. I agree, as a Communist government that is horribly repressive, North Korea is an evil government. But why should the U.S., Britain, and Israel have the bomb? "We, along with our allies, can be trusted with the bomb, because we stand for freedom," says the neo-con. In the history of mankind, only one government has used nuclear weapons against people: the United States. And even more than that, the U.S. used the bomb against civilians. It seems to me that even we can't be trusted with the bomb. Why do we have an inherent right to nuclear weapons? It isn't a God-given right, I can tell you that.

(As a disclaimer, I do not support the North Korean government in any way, and I hereby condemn their recent nuclear weapons test, along with all nuclear weapons proliferation.)

Why The Republicans Deserve to Lose

The allegations that Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) engaged in inappropriate e-mails and instant messages with a former under-age congressional page is certainly disturbing. What is more disturbing is that the former page is male. A homosexual Republican? Yes, you got that right. Not only is the whole affair embarrassing, but to make it worse, Foley sought to dodge responsibility by blaming his behavior on alcoholism, being molested as a teenager by a "clergyman," and that he's gay. None of these reasons are excuses for what he did. He's apparently a drunk (despite no one knowing about it in the past), but being drunk doesn't make you hit on teenage boys. He was molested by a clergyman, but that also isn't an excuse. If my mother was murdered, that doesn't give me an excuse to turn to murder to deal with my personal tragedy. He's gay. Being gay is supposed to be okay in America in 2006, so he can't quite use that as an excuse either, or can he?

If we look at the abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church a few years back, the vast majority of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys. Despite what the law say (and no, I am not trying to give the predator-priests a pass) teenagers are not children. If I had consensual sex with a 16 year old girl, it does not make me a pedophile, in fact it doesn't even make me a criminal (the age of consent in my state is 16). But looking again at the predator-priests we will see that most of them are homosexuals who have a preference for teenage boys. Is there a connection between being an active homosexual man and attraction to teenage boys? I'm no scientist, nor am I trying to make some wide sweeping scientific statement, but perhaps there is. But I digress.

Foley dodged responsibility by checking himself into rehab. It was a pathetic attempt to garner sympathy from the American people, as well as an attempt to get out of the unwelcome attention for a while.

So why do the Republicans deserve to lose in November? The Foley incident has brought several things into the open about the Republican party. First, apparently there are several other closeted gays in the Republican party who are known to be gay by their fellow Republicans but who won't expose them for the imposters that they are. Secondly, Foley's indiscretions (including allegedly showing up at the congressional pages' dorm drunk) were exposed up to years ago, and it seems that the Republican leadership in the House did nothing about it. Another strike against them. And for strike three?

I've said it before, but the Republicans have played the pro-life base for dupes. They aren't committed at overturning Roe v. Wade, they just use it to drive out their conservative base. The Republicans have become so out of touch with their supporters and become so arrogant in their own security of power, they have forgotten who put them in that position of power. If pro-lifers and those who support traditional religious values will abandon the Republican party, perhaps all those Republicans in Washington will remember what they used to stand for and re-embrace those values. If not, it will be the status quo for decades. Either way, I predict big losses for Republicans next month.

Prospects for Restoration, etc.

As a monarchist, I look forward to the day when monarchy is the common form of government around the world, especially in the West. With that in mind, are there any prospects for the restoration of a non-reigning or exiled monarchy? Or for that matter, are there any prospects of currently reigning monarchies regaining strong royal powers? I would say that the prospects for restoration/regaining are not good. I cannot think of any royal European family that faces a good chance at being restored or regaining strong royal powers--with the exception of the Prince of Liechtenstein, who has already received increased royal powers due to a national referendum passed by the people in 2004 (with a margin of 64% in support of the increased executive powers of the prince).

What can monarchists look forward to then? I believe that in order for monarchy to retake its proper place in Western society, it must be done through our current political structures. That means it must be done democratically. Short of some terrible and devastating war or natural disaster which destroys our current political structures, I do not see any other way for monarchy to experience a resurrection. I believe what we need is a charismatic and influential politician to gain power and support and change the laws of his nation, thus declaring himself a monarch or returning strong royal powers to an existing royal family.

The idea of a "commoner" declaring himself monarch is anathema to many monarchists, but I must disagree with this point of view. The trap many monarchists fall into is a "cult of the blood." This "cult" is one in which supporters of a monarchy or royal family develop a pseudo-religious piety to those who are of "noble" or "royal" blood. Those within this "cult" consider any who are outside of "the blood" to be unfit for rule. The problem with this point of view is that it gives too much credence to fabricated notions of "good, better, best" in relation to one's ancestry. The blood of HM Queen Elizabeth II is of no more worth than an "untouchable" in the slums of Calcutta, India. In the eyes of God, from Whom all authority is derived, one man's blood is no better than another; He loves all without partiality (For there is no respect of persons with God--Romans, 2:11).

Being the Germanophile that I am, I would love nothing more than to see his successor, HIRM Georg Friedrich von Preußen take the throne as King of Prussia and German Kaiser. But if a charismatic politician were able to achieve the support of the German people and declare himself Kaiser, I would support him. To me, the ideal of monarchy is more important than loyalty to a royal family, which is nothing more than a political tool used by that family to ensure stability.

Benedict and Islam

The Islamic response to the Holy Father's address in Regensberg on September 12, 2006 has been totally blown out of proportion. Firstly, let's look at the line in dispute in the original German: "'Zeig mir doch, was Mohammed Neues gebracht hat, und da wirst du nur Schlechtes und Inhumanes finden wie dies, daß er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte, durch das Schwert zu verbreiten'" (read the original German version here). Now let's look at the English translation (again, from the Vatican itself): "'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'" (read the English version here).

Now let us pay close attention to the original German. The word "Schlechtes" is translated in the English translation as "evil." The problem with this is that "Schlechtes" translates into English as "bad." "Evil" in German is either "böse" or "übel" depending on the context. If you will carefully read the original German, you will not find either "böse" or "übel."

Be that as it may, even if the Holy Father did come out and explicitly say that Islam is evil, would that justify the Muslim reaction to him? Calling for his assassination, buring him in effigy, proclaiming that the Vatican is allied with America and Israel to destroy Islam, the murder of a nun in Somalia? I do not think so. The Muslims who are in the streets calling for the death of the Pope are the very ones who are proving that Islam is not the peaceful religion the secularists, modernists, and the Bush Administration would lead us to believe.