Monday, March 30, 2009

2 Years Old

On the occasion of this weblog's 2nd anniversary, I am doing a self-interview.

Q: You run a blog in support of the Old European Order, but there have been a lot of off-topic posts?
A: What do you mean?

Q: Aren't you blogging a lot about the financial crisis? Isn't that off-topic?
A: Certainly not. This blog is about the decline of civilization; unchecked democracy, cultural decline, pervasive government, unsound money, etc. World War I destroyed civilization as we knew it, and we have seen much decline since too.

Q: Do you blame all of that on Woodrow Wilson?
A: His revolution certainly has a lot to answer for. He was certainly not alone, and there were pioneers before him. Also, there were people who came after him. World War I was an immense attack on the immune system of our civilization. There were diseases before, some of them quite severe, but that war destroyed the immune system, making our civilization vulnerable to so many modernist diseases. If it weren't for American intervention – and phoney neutrality, for that matter – the Old Order would have had a good chance of survival.

Q: You blame World War One on Woodrow Wilson? He certainly didn't start it! Didn't the Old Order do that?
A: The Old Order attempted suicide, but it was Wilson and his cronies who pushed it off the bridge.

Q: But since the monarchs started it, weren't they responsible for all those lost lives? Wasn't it right to emasculate them?
A: It was not the monarchs who pushed for war. Yes, they were responsible. They should have done more to prevent it. The fact is that the monarchs were not sufficiently serving as checks on the politicos. The modernist response to this, however, is to abolish whatever is left of checks. That's modernist logic in a nutshell.

Q: Emperor-King Franz Josef gave in because of old age. Isn't that an argument against monarchy?
A: That is indeed a republican argument against monarchy, whereas if a President is too old, that's a republican argument for reform, not abolition.

Q: You present yourself as an Adult Third Culture Kid. What do you mean by that?
A: A Third Culture Kid is a child who has spent a significant time in one or more other cultures than his own. An adult TCK is one such who has grown up.

Q: And you partly grew up in Africa?
A: Yes, I did.

Q: Doesn't that make you a multi-culturalist?
A: Certainly not! I respect – and to some extent even enjoy – other peoples' cultures, and I am partly a mix myself. However, the attempt at making a porridge of it all is indeed perilous. Moreover, Western culture – what's left of it, that is – must be defended. It has gone so far that we also need a restoration.

Q: What is the most valuable asset you bring with you from this “third culture” upbringing?
A: I believe it is the ability to see things from more perspectives, in particular to see your own society from the “outside,” as I was never quite like the others. We need to see through the “mist” created by the modernists.

Q: Do you believe that government should be of laws, rather than of men?
A: I believe in it as an ideal.

Q: But still you are a monarchist?
A: Modern democratic government is certainly rule by legislation, but there are more bureaucrats and politicians than ever, and that certainly is government of men. Laws seems to change more often than people change their shirts. We must remember that classical monarchy often governed under law that could not easily be changed at a whim. The Baron of Montesquieu defined monarchy as government with a monarch governing according to fundamental law.

Q: Gerald Ford is known to have said that the American Republic is a success, as it was a government of laws, rather than of men. What is your comment to that?
A: That must have been a joke. Well, many people make unintended jokes. Even at his time that was a joke. Even more so now.

Q: Your blog may be considered by many not be exactly friendly to American ideas. Do you consider yourself Anti-American? Do you hate America and Americans?
A: Absolutely not! I am opposed to a whole lot that comes from that part of the world, but far from everything. A lot of Americans – and also some non-American fans of America – consider their fight for independence an act of bringing the world out of darkness. I find this concept repulsive, and it is false. However, I do not consider myself anti-American. Given recent developments in those United States, it would not surprise me, though, if I were classified as a “terrorist,” being a foreign dissenter. We must also remember that the ideas of liberty in large part came from Europe. The further we get from Wilson's revolution – and American independence, for that matter – the more it comes clear that the rejection of monarchy was not particularly wise. I went to an international elementary school, where the largest nationality group was American. I find it hard to understand how I could hate Americans or America.

Q: Do you consider an American monarchy a viable option?
A: Apart from perhaps the Kingdom of Hawai'i, no. I think it was unwise to abandon monarchy, but it would also be unwise to “return” to monarchy for that nation with no tradition for monarchy. It would be better to return to earlier republican traditions. Wilsonian mass democracy should be rejected. I support the Ron Paul movement, which supports going back to earlier republican traditions domestically and ending the Wilsonian World Order.

Q: Let me get this straight; you focus mostly on monarchy, but also on other issues of ills in our time?
A: I do nothing of the kind!

Q: Would you please explain?
A: Focusing is nothing I do more or less. I either focus or I do not. I have maximum one focal point at a time. Focusing is nothing I do on this blog. I emphasize certain issues more than others. Some issues are simply off-topic.

Q: Getting into the English language now? Isn't that going a bit high, since you're not a native English speaker?
A: Abuse of terms is a phenomenon also in other languages. Abuse of the word focus is not exclusive to the English language. Besides, I'm an international school brat, so mastering English isn't my worst problem.

Q: You do seem nitpicky with words?
A: The decline in language is part of the modern decline. It is part of the problem with modernism. The philosophy that words don't matter must be fought. Besides, Kong Fuzi told us that when words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.

Q: When your scope is so wide, are there really any topics that are off-topic?
A: If I started posting general public speaking advice, that would certainly be off-topic. Astronomy, also, would be off-topic, unless it somehow, e.g., is related to the weakness of “omnipotent government.”

Q: You have an affection for aristocracy. How does that align with John Maynard Keynes being a nobleman?
A: Being an aristocrat does not necessarily make you right. Neither does being a monarch. Monarchy and aristocracy are good concepts in general, but I do not deny that there have been bad monarchs and bad aristocrats. The American electorate has elected a gang of no-goods in Washington, D.C. who do everything to make the crisis worse. That should be enough to put decent and intelligent people off any positive view of democracy. That said, Keynes was not born an aristocrat, he was created a Baron. Also, the peerage became extinct upon his demise due to his inability to produce an issue. He had no new generations of his own to worry about when he left this world and the rest of us with the long run.

Q: Do you believe Lord Keynes was intelligent?
A: I hear they say he was. I have no reason to belive he wasn't. I believe you can be extremely intelligent without understanding economics. The MIT students who later have ended up in Wall Street making and using models that have serious problems when it comes to economic reality are probably very smart. I have no reason to believe that they are not extremely intelligent. Especially when you are very smart, it is important that you are wise enough to understand that your central management of society and the economy will not work out well. Perhaps that was a major part of the problem with Woodrow Wilson as well.

1 comment:

Matterhorn said...

Good idea to do a self-interview! Interesting.