Liberia, the Lone Wolf-pack, and D'Souza's "America" the Movie

Because of Ebola the country of Liberia is much in the news lately, yet most people remain unaware that the US has something of a vested interest in Liberia. It is, for better or worse (mostly worse), America's only colony on the African continent--former colony I should say.

Its capital of Monrovia is named in honor of the fifth president of the United States, James Monroe. It is one of only two national capitals named after a US president (the other one being Washington DC). The similarity between the Liberian flag and the US flag is no accident. According to Wikipedia:

The Liberian flag bears a close resemblance to the flag of the United States, showing the ex-American slave origins of the country. The Liberian flag has similar red and white stripes, as well as a blue square with a white star in the canton. It was adopted on Friday, April 26, 1847. The eleven stripes symbolize the signatories of the Liberian Declaration of Independence, red and white symbolizing courage and moral excellence. The white star represents the freedom the ex-slaves were given, above the blue square representing the African mainland. The flag is seen on many ships around the world as Liberia offers registration under its flag.

Years ago during my travels, I became intrigued with the large number of ships flying the Liberian flag that I saw in various ports around the world. I wondered what the deal was with Liberia, so I researched the subject. What I found (I did my research in the mid-1990s) was a bloody, horrific, god-awful mess. Liberia was at that time in the midst of a civil war that lasted for around ten years (circa 1989-1997). Some reports on the war place its beginnings as early as 1980, and some imply that it is still going on, although tamped down by the presence of UN troops.

---

The reasons for the war are convoluted and complex, but it is not too simplistic to say that a major cause of the conflict was the "bad blood" between the "Amerio-Liberian" ruling class (descendants of black manumitted American slaves) and the much more populous native tribes. According to a recent report by the BBC: "The UN maintains some 15,000 soldiers in Liberia. It is one of the organization's most expensive peacekeeping operations." The key phrase there is "peacekeeping operations" (followed closely by "most expensive"). Those thousands of soldiers were sent there to keep the peace, not to fight Ebola -- which is a good news/bad news scenario I suppose. The good news being that there are a number of soldiers already on the ground in Liberia, the bad news is that they are there to keep the lid on a still simmering situation. [Sidebar: According to the UN, they currently have "over 14,000 staff" in Liberia, "including more than 11,000 international troops and 1,100 police advisors." The UNMIL (United Nations Mission In Liberia) was deployed to Liberia in order "to help maintain stability in the country and keep the peace, following the peace agreement in 2003." So the UN has had troops on the ground in Liberia for over a decade.] Seeing as how without the US, Liberia would not even exist as such, I feel that it is only right and proper that we aid them at this time. In my opinion Liberia's longstanding ties to the US have been ignored and swept under the rug for far too long. (The problem of quarantines, visas, and other travel concerns are of course of great importance, but a separate issue). In any event, I just wanted to briefly discuss Liberia for the benefit of those who may not know any of its history. If you find the subject of interest, you might also want to look into Liberia's neighbor Sierra Leone (another Ebola hotspot). Of special interest is the founding of its capital Freetown in 1791 by Thomas Peters, and its settlement by free black American/Canadians (or Canadian/Americans, or simply Canadians, as the case may be). I will now move on to the topic of "lone wolves" as the term is used in connection with Muslim terrorists. First of all, the term "lone-wolf" is a misnomer, a misleading euphemism designed to distract us from the truth. In the words of Andrew McCarthy's "The Lone-Wolf Canard":

For government officials and investigators, the "lone wolf" label has come to mean the atrocity in question cannot be categorized as "terrorism," no matter how many "Allahu Akbars!" are shouted as bullets fly, bombs blast, or heads roll. For the commentariat, "lone wolf" signifies that the Muslim in question -- whether a lifer or a "recent convert" -- has "self-radicalized," spontaneously becoming a wanton, irrational killer. ...New York, Ottawa, Quebec, Oklahoma, Fort Hood.... The "lone wolf" canard no longer conceals the harsh reality: The violence in "violent extremism" is terrorism even if performed alone; and what the "wolf" is "extreme" about is Islam."

I will concede for the sake of argument that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate--that is, that they have no interest in joining a violent jihad against non-Muslims (infidels). That still leaves many millions of rabid Muslim jihadists who operate with the tunnel-visioned fervor of the insanely self-righteous zealot--ISIS being a case in point. That is the sort of wolf-pack to which these "lone wolves" belong. He (or she) is hardly alone--there are millions of more wolves in their pack. These "lone wolves" do not just spontaneously generate in an ideological/religious/political vacuum--they are nurtured and cultivated by the pack, mainly through the Internet. The US keeps bringing more and more Muslims over here like they were on sale. Not wise, not wise at all -- to put it lightly. I suspect that there will be hell to pay for such foolishness one of these days. I will wrap up this article with a brief plug for Dineesh D'Souza's film "America: Imagine the World Without Her," whose DVD will soon be available for purchase (it can currently be downloaded as software). I hope and pray that it finds a very wide audience among those who may have missed seeing it in the theater (and even among those who did, but want a repeat). D'Souza takes direct aim at the insidious "shame based" narrative of America that has been so widely promoted in our schools. This guilt-trip narrative of America is of course one-sided propaganda, intentionally designed to cast the US into the role of bad-guy bully. It is clever propaganda--the people who swallow such nonsense aren't idiots after all...well, the ones who came up with the narrative aren't idiots. It takes an intelligent and informed person to effectively counter-attack such cunning slander. Mr. D'Souza is such a person, and any and every American patriot should applaud and support his efforts to set the record straight. If you have yet to watch the movie, please don't put it off because you think it will be some dry, boring lecture on "rah-rah flag waving." It is not. I found it to be a spirited and engrossing film that kept my interest from beginning to end--but then, I believe in America. I believe that for all her faults and follies, false-steps and miscues, America is, beneath it all, admirable, and that it is the duty of "we the people," individually, to protect and uphold her position as the "shining city upon a hill." Please make the effort to watch "America" if you have not done so yet.