Ron Paul

I'm taking the liberty of posting a self-interview.

Q: What's with you? You're running a blog in defense of the Old European Order, and you're promoting a candidate for President in a democratic republic?
A: This blog is very much about the Old European Order, yes. It is more generally, however, about unplugging the Wilson Revolution. An essential part of the Wilson Revolution was the unplugging of the Old European Order, but it was also more than that.

Q: What is so appealing with Ron Paul?
A: He wants to end Wilsonian foreign policy, and he also wants to end Wilsonian domestic policy. E.g., he wants to put an end to the flawed, modernist, post-gold monetary system.

Q: How can someone who has his reservations about the American Revolution and dumping of someone else's property into the harbor support the candidacy of someone who clearly approves of such through his campaign?
A: I am sure there are a lot of Ron Paul supporters who have disagreements with the candidate. He has so diverse supporters. You could of course say that Dr. Paul's interpretation of history is such a fundamental disagreement that it blocks all support of mine. However, bringing America to the ideals supported by Ron Paul is such an improvement overall, that it would be idiotic to let such disagreements get in the way.

Q: Some of Paul's supporters have even done a “Strasbourg Tea Party,” which could give associations with the French Revolution. In fact, Europe coming after America in this Ron Paul business is comparable to 1776 vs. 1789. Also, some are even comparing what is happening now to the French Revolution. What do you think of that?
A: I did not personally take part in any “Tea Party” event. I don't support the French Revolution. I do support giving the European Parliament a piece of one's mind, which the Strasbourg event was largely about. A lot of people see the French Revolution as progress. Such flawed views must of course be opposed. There has and will come words and other messages from Ron Paul supporters, those affiliated with the official campaign, and even Dr. Paul himself that I cannot support. Again, the modernist regime I do not support. Ron Paul, I think, will bring real changes for the better. So the good doctor has my support.

Q: How can an old school monarchist support a candidate who believes in the republican form of government?
A: There you go again!

Q: Would you please explain it a bit more?
A: A major reason for my support of old order monarchy is its limited government compared to modern democracy. It does not from that follow that I would not support restraint on republican governments, which it is clear Ron Paul has a good platform for. It is a good path for those United States to return to their earlier republican traditions. There are several monarchists and sympathizers of monarchy who support the candidacy of Ron Paul. American monarchist Andrew Cusack also supports Ron Paul, and he has even reportedly donated. Jack Maturin says there's no contradiction in being a supporter of Hoppe and of Paul. To take another group of people, there are lots of anarchists who support Ron Paul's run. The LRC Blog has virtually turned into a Paul campaign blog.

Q: Is not what is happening in those United States now disproving that monarchy is better than democracy?
A: No, it is merely proving that it is possible for the people to get their acts together for the purpose of roling back the government behemoth. Regardless of whether Paul wins or not, there will still be problems with democratic government. Real monarchy is one way of restraining it, but there are other means too.

Q: But if Paul wins and he is successful in his policies, the claim will be disproved?
A: I don't think it will be a cakewalk to role back the behemoth. In any case, monarchy is better than democracy because with regards to several aspects it tends to be better all else being equal. That does not rule out that things can go better in a democracy – be that a pure democracy or a democratic republic with restraints on majority rule – than in a monarchy.

Q: This is pure theory. The fact is that with a once again successful federal republic on the other side of the big pond, you have a strong example working against you. How is theory going to help you?
A: Well, the relative success of those United States before Woodrow Wilson doesn't help the cause much either. The decline of those United States can be used to support the theory of democratic rule as inferior to monarchical. If decline stops, and is even replaced by recivilization, that support will weaken. But then, so be it. I believe Ron Paul will significantly improve those United States. Archduke Otto tells us that the State is there for the people, not the other way around. I will not sacrifice people for a cause. Sadly, there are a whole lot of people who do.

Q: What is the crown argument for a Paul Presidency?
A: In the words of Mr. Tristan Murphy, he is the only candidate who could spark a restoration of the West.