A Dozen Years

Today is the duodecennial anniversary of this weblog. A dozen years ago today, this blog was launched. It's the silk anniversary.

This blog was launched on the day of the promulgation of the constitutional amendment making parliamentarism a part of the written Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, and that is also a dozen years ago. The amendment was passed in Parliament on February 20.

Ten Years on the Blog

Today is the decennial anniversary of this weblog. Ten years ago today, this blog was launched. It's the tin anniversary.

Copper Anniversary

Today is the novennial anniversary of this weblog. Nine years ago today, this blog was launched.

Bronze Anniversary

Today is the octennial anniversary of this weblog. Eight years ago today, this blog was launched.

Wool Anniversary

Today is the septennial anniversary of this weblog. Seven years ago today, this blog was launched.

Since this blog was launched on the day of the promulgation of the constitutional amendment making parliamentarism a part of the written Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway, whose bicentennial anniversary is this year.

Yours truly is, BTW, working on a forthcoming book, to be published this year, in connection with the bicentennary, as project manager, editor, and contributor. The book is to be released later this year, and the central question we pose is whether the Constitution really gives us freedom. It will be published in Norwegian.

Half a Dozen Years

This blog today celebrates its iron anniversary.

Six years now this blog has been on a mission to unplug the Wilson Revolution. It has been interesting times.

For what's up ahead, pay attention in the following days.


Previously: Five Years on the Blog

Sidebar Links Reviewed

As noted here, I had received notice of troublesome content at some of the sites linked to in my sidebar. As promised I would do, I have now reviewed the sidebar links – of which there were and still are over a hundred.

Around a dozen links have been removed due to being dead. Four links have been removed because the content has changed too much in a troublesome direction since the decision was made to include them. I here even found one clearly turned Nazi-sympathizing blog.

Although I do not take responsibility for the content at the other end of the links, there are of course limits too to what I can link to. The disclaimer, however, still stands, and sites that remain linked to I still do not take responsibility for the content of. I may even have major philosophical differences with them.

The notice I received contained a claim that half my links were either to neo-Nazi or racist blogs. This is a preposterous claim. I challenge anyone to prove it.

Five Years on the Blog

Five years ago today, this weblog was launched.

Previous anniversaries:

• An Olympiad Ago Today
• Leather Anniversary
• 2 Years Old
• Anniversary

The blog was launched on the very day promulgation of parliamentary government as part of our written constitution was made.

Previously this year, a commission proposed a quite extensive revision of the Norwegian Constitution. The proposal contains a lot on human rights, including a provision on unreasonable unequal treatment. A lot can be analyzed and said. Suffice to say that it seems we – or they – now may beget a constitution that gives people all sorts of “rights” from their fellow subjects, instead of just protection against government encroachment. There is little comfort, I believe, in the worries from some politicians that the proposed revision would reduce the power of the politicos.

Views and News from Norway has a story on the constitutional revision.

Apparently, there is also an ongoing project of modernizing the language of the Constitution. There have been projects on modernizing the language of the Bible, and the result does not look good. The current language norm of the Constitution is the official norm of 1903. Although, language issues – of course – are subordinate to issues of content, generally speaking, I say go back to the norm of 1814 – for the Constitution that is.

Mr. Mark Steyn gives some perspectives on something somewhat related:

An Olympiad Ago Today

This weblog was launched.

Previous anniversaries:

• Leather Anniversary
• 2 Years Old
• Anniversary

Trond Norén Isaksen – on a note related to the occasion for the launch of this blig – informs us that His Majesty King Harald V will be holding Council in Bergen on September 16.

Leather Anniversary

Three years ago today, this web log was launched.

The occasion was the royal promulgation of entering so-called responsible government in the written Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway. This promulgation took place on this day three years ago.

I also wrote this article on the occasion.

2 Years Old

On the occasion of this weblog's 2^nd 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.

Anniversary

It is today one year since this blog was launched.

It is also one year since parliamentarism was promulgated as part of the written Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway.

Since the launch of this weblog, the Habsburg colors have been introduced as the the blog's colors, more than 400 entries have been posted, and the blog's icon has been honored with a Wikipedia entry.

Taken Seriously?

At a recent post an anonymous commenter says:

I'd take this post more seriously if it wasn't from someone who is apparently protecting the crown of a non-existent country.

I'd take this commenter seriously if:

1. He'd have the guts to post with a name.


2. He'd bother to go beyond what's "apparent."


3. He'd present some substantial arguments.

Don't you just love those anonymous commenters? Don't you just love their courage? The all time high comes when they try to cast doubt on the seriousness of other people.

This blog has as its icon the late Lt.-Col. Strutt of the Royal Scots. Anyone bothering to read the blog intro – accesible just below the blog title and description – would find that out. Of course, not everyone can be expected to use their time reading it. However, when one makes claims about the blog or its author, I don't find it unreasonable to expect that kind of courtesy.

The text below the photo is a caption text. If a photo is of a person, it is quite normal that the text refers to that person. The text above the photo identifies the name of the person. The 'About Me' box identifies the author of this blog. Anyone taking his time to make comments about this blog or its author should have ample time to comprehend the difference between Lt.-Col. Strutt and the author of this blog.

Moreover, the mission of this blog is clearly stated in the description below the title of the blog. One might be tempted to ask what is apparent about a commenter who chooses to emphasize a caption text of a photo, which it should be clear is not the author of this blog, over the blog's description just below the blog's title.

Now, the commenter might perhaps be forgiven for his perception of the "apparent" were it not for the fact that the Lt.-Col. – as the caption text states – was a protector of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial-Royal Family, and not a protector of the Austro-Hungarian Crown. The Lt.-Col. was a protector of this family at a time when Austria-Hungary very much was dissolved. The Austro-Hungarian Royal Family actually still exists, although it normally these days goes by the name of the Habsburg Family – or the House of Habsburg.

One might say that the difference between the Royal Family and the Crown is insignificant, but it is not. If one is not referring to the physical object to place on a royal's head, or currency, the difference between protecting the Royal Family and the institution of the Crown when it comes to Austria-Hungary was quite significant indeed in 1919 – especially when it comes to a Lt.-Col. sent on a mission at the initiative of His Britannic Majesty George V.

Basing a one sentence comment on what is "apparent," but cannot be apparent to everyone, there is in addition no substantial argument.

My readers are of course free not to take me or my blog seriously. A similar freedom belongs to me. I will take no commenter seriously who posts anonymously, bases his comment on what first comes into mind as "apparent," and has no substantial argument.

Blog Launched

It is on this day – when the King in Council has promulgated parliamentarism as a part of the written Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway – that this blog is launched. An article on this constitutional amendment will follow shortly.

This blog will be dedicated to countering democratic modernism. It is an unashamed monarchist blog. It deplores World War I, and it deplores the Allied victory in World War I.

We recall what Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn told us:

For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution.

The intelligent reader might then ask why not the blog name refers to the French Revolution instead of Woodrow Wilson's gruesome deed. And if World War I finished off the old order, shouldn't we blame the old order that started it – not an American executive who brought his country into the war at a late stage?

The short answer is that Woodrow Wilson finished the old order off. So he gets the "honor" of having his name connected with the name of this blog. The blog will, however, defend the Old European Order as such. It will not exclusively be concerned with Woodrow Wilson. Such Wilson Era things as the introduction of fiat money and directly elected U.S. Senators are not exactly adored in this blog, and such issues will be touched.

The long answer is one of the things that will come through this blog with time.

The icon of this blog is Lieutenant-Colonel Strutt. He was sent on the personal initiative of His Britannic Majesty George V to protect His Imperial and Royal Majesty Emperor and King Karl and the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal family during internal exile. Strutt was a partisan of the Old European Order, and he saw to it that the Emperor did not have to abdicate in exchange for safety. We will get back to Strutt in the future.