Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Another Anti-Wilsonian Blog on the Radar

Another anti-Wilsonian blog has appeared on the radar – or at least on my radar. We have Conservative Swede by someone who apparently is a fellow Scandinavian, namely "Conservative Swede". I've added this newly created blog to my blog roll.

Conservative Swede's first post, dated April 16, on the day 90 years after Woodrow Wilson's address after the declaration of war against Imperial Germany, is The power configuration of the Wilsonian West. The most recent blog post, dated today, is Is America the EU’s Enforcer?, a comment to a post at the Brussels Journal, to which I owe the discovery of this promising blog. "Conservative Swede" says:

He puts the focus on the "EU tyranny", as the blind man's description of the elephant, if I may say so. But the elephant is much bigger: it's the "Wilsonian world order".
Conservative Swede and "Conservative Swede" are very much welcome to the blogosphere. I especially appreciate the timing of the blog launch.


Conservative Swede said...

I was not aware that I hit an anniversary. Nice!

I'm not sure if I'm an anti-Wilsonian in any general sense. Wilson was a rival of Lenin and Mussolini (not an enemy, they had more in common with each other than with the "old order"). Among the three, Wilson was not the worst choice. And the old order was on its way out anyway--Wilson or no Wilson.

But quite in the same way, the Wilsonian order is on its way out now. The longer we hold on to it, the worse it will get.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Forgive me if I have been too presumptive about the anti-Wilsonian character of your blog. A blog whose description reads "The threat from Islam, the power configuration of the Wilsonian West, and the impending revolution" – and whose posts do not exactly seem friendly towards the Wilsonian world order – I believe to a certain extent – and in some sense – can be labeled anti-Wilsonian. But, again, forgive me if I have been too presumptive.

As for Lenin and Mussolini, and Stalin and Hitler for that matter, they were – or at least their rise was – largely a product of the work of the progressive professor from Princeton. I do agree that they could have risen otherwise too, and I also agree that among those Wilson was not the worst choice.

While it is perhaps true that the old order was on its way out anyway, Dr. Alan Sked has questioned the concept of Habsburg decline, saying that it was by no means obvious that the Habsburg Empire would fall, not before late in World War I. Moreover you may find The Prussian Monarchy Stuff by William S. Lind interesting.

Regarding whether the Wilsonian order will go, I think it is most likely that it will go with the fall of the paper dollar, which is bound to come sooner or later, but it is hard to tell when. It will probably come like lightning from a clear sky.

When it comes to Jackson, which you commented at your own blog, you are of course right that Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn was not too fond of him either. Jackson was the first wholly popularly elected of those United States, albeit not directly. The presidency of Andrew Jackson hence represents a step in the democratic "progress."

Conservative Swede said...

Hej J.K.!

Our conversation inspired me to write this.