Today, the Right Honourable Posadnyk Lord Krištof Slavomirovych Drakonov, Marquess of Asenhorod, and leader of the Optimates political faction released an official statement on behalf of the Optimates defending against percieved accusations regarding the government policies made by the Lord Mar d'Israeli, Viscount of Royan, the leader of the newly-founded Pavlovian Strength in his State Gazette interview yesterday. The Right Honourable Marquess of Asenhorod defended his government and faction's policies, claiming that his party has consistently opposed liberalism and passed policies to protect Montescano's Pavlovian heritage.
The Right Honourable Posadnyk also gave the State Gazette the honour of interviewing him to discuss the recent political developments, as well as the activities of his government, his thoughts on recently passed laws and his plans for the future.
Statement from the Right Honourable Posadnyk and leader of the Optimates on behalf of the Optimates
On behalf of my political faction - the Optimates of which I happen to be the leader, I've taken the task of responding to the claims of the Viscount of Royan - Jaroslav Hannadijevich Mar d'Israeli. In the recently published interview, where he lays out the basic outline of his ideas, we can't help but find points worth criticising. His new political subject - the "Pavlovian strenght" is formed on the basis of reclaiming the old Pavlovian spirit, and ultimately, bringing about a new iteration of Pavlov. He accuses our newer subjects of "falling out of touch" with the spirit of Pavlov, and that would potentially lead us to the path of a liberalized and a democratic (meant in a negative way both by the Viscount of Royan and myself) society.
The accusations couldn't be further from the Truth. Our political faction is founded upon the religious, anti-liberal and anti-democratic thought, and the spirit of Pavlov still resides in our consciousnesses. The recent "rerusification" of our culture only proves that, but the decision of also not naming ourselves "Pavlov" again has a meaning of it's own.
We fully aknowledge the support the Pavlovian tradition and influence upon Montescano; I as the Chancellor and now Posadnyk personally oversaw the establishment of the "Pavlovian Union" which was precisely founded to fully preserve the Pavlovian legacy, and it's made in such a way, that if our dear Monarch wants to bring about Pavlov once again, he is supremely free to do so. Mister d'Israeli asks a rhetorical question in his interview - "what is more dear to you - seeking momentary praise from younger and insignificant foreign micronations, or following the will of Almighty God, who distinguished Pavlov, made us the light among Nations and the Third Rome?" To which we answer with the following. Divine Providence works in amazing ways, and the eternal law of "the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away" applies to this very situation. Yes, we agree on the honors that are bestowed upon Pavlov, but as it was with the First and the Second Rome, the Allmighty God had a different plan. Now Montescano is graced by our Lord, and we shall pray together that it remains so.
As Mister d'Israeli correctly remarked, there exists a hierarchy of "God, Monarch and Country." First and foremost, we the Optimates, serve God, who by his will gives our Monarch his power, and on behalf of this will our Monarch reigns. The order is then obvious: "God, Monarch and Country." We worship one God, who revealed himself to our common Father Abraham and sent his son, Jesus Christ, who is the Lord and Saviour. We recognize one Monarch, who by his royal intelect rules over us. And we are loyal to one country, the onne which our Monarch chooses to rule. Not two ones - one from the past and one from the present, simply because as our Lord teaches us: "Every Kingdom divided against itself, shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall." We do not oppose the legacy of Pavlov, but we don't see it currently as our Monarch's will. Surely, we repeat with Mister d'Israeli, there are many ideas we share, but the accusations are flat out false. And what concerns Mister d'Israelis' remarks regarding the purely decorative and not functional elements, such as the "Order of the Flat Earth." We do not oppose it as such, but we will need to see our Monarch's judgement in this case in order to support it.
Interview with the Right Honourable Posadnyk Lord Krištof Slavomirovych Drakonov, Marquess of Asenhorod
Q: Firstly, with the recent political developments and in light of your statement, can you give your brief reaction to the creation of the "Pavlovian Strength" party by the Honourable Viscount Mar d'Israeli and their program?
A: Greetings, and thank you for having me here. Just a while ago, I published the official response and statement to Mister d'Israeli's claims in his interview. My summary of the argument is this - "we do not oppose the idea of Pavlov, but we currently follow the will of our Monarch regarding politics, and as we do not see a will towards the reestablishment of Pavlov, we do not insist upon it." There are also another points by Mister d'Israeli which we find false such as the claims of modernism, which are self refutable given that one looks at the ideas of our political faction.
Q: On the topic of Pavlov's legacy and heritage within Montescano, what policies have you and your government taken to protect it, would you like to see any further steps taken to protect Pavlovianness and do you believe this legacy of Pavlovianness is a positive or a liability?
A: This is something that I also mentioned in the statement. Since the disestablishment of Pavlov, we've thought ahead and prevented anyone from stealing or corrupting the tradition by creating the Pavlovian Union. It particularly aims to protect and preserve it, exactly as it was and still in a way is. Also, the recent "re-Rusification" of our culture is also very strongly tied to our Pavlovian tradition and it is a "homage" to the past. Any possible steps in the future must take our Monarch's will into account, that's what we firmly profess. I continiue to believe that Pavlovianness will remain within our hearts, and that it will never fade away. Mister d'Israeli's fearmongering claims about this are pure falsheoods.
Q: Another issue regarding Pavlovianness is the so-called "new Pavlovians", subjects who have little to no connection to historical Pavlov (between 2014 and 2016). Some say the growing amount of these people within Pavlov is a problem. What are your thoughts?
A: I certainly do not percieve it as a problem or a threat, since these people are not violently opposed to Pavlov, and it's spirit. I myself had been a "new Pavlovian" at one point as well when I joined Pavlov at first, but I learned what Pavlov is and, first and foremost, what it means. I'll grant that, the situation is different in this regard since we currently have Montescano and not Pavlov, but I also believe that it's the easiest thing to educate our citizens and to give them a "Pavlovian consciousness", even to those who are newcomers.
Q: To move onto other matters, you have always been described as a principled traditionalist. What do you make of the criticisms leveled against recent laws passed (such as the political faction laws) that have been accused of promoting modernism? Do you think traditionalism is under threat within Montescano?
A: I have never heard more foolish and false claims. Montescano, the Optimates and me myself, have always professed a strict traditionalism. Our political factions act has been promoted only to act as an "Esox in the carp pond," to boost activity. The current leadership of Montescano has been established before the political factions act and in no way is there any inclination that the situation will change. What is actually ironic, is that while the Optimates were founded mainly just to better organize the current leadership, the newly created subject - the Pavlovian Strenght, which criticises this act has directly profited from it by utilising it to create a new political faction. Our principles of traditionalism are well documented in our economic policy where we adhere to traditional mode of economy - feudalism, while on the other hand our critic, Mister d'Israeli accusing us of modernism has himself set up a bank, a mostly capitalist (liberal economic theory) entity in Montescano and holds a significant share in it. I do not fear for traditionalism in Montescano; there might be a minor issue with liberal ideas incoming but it surely won't be from the Optimates, but rather from the Pavlovian Strenght, I fear.
Q: What are the economic policies you believe need to be put in place within Montescano?
A: In countries such as ours it is difficult to have an economy on par with the bigger states, but we are on our way of reaching that. Surely, by adhering to Christian social teaching, the first law we implemented in Montescano was outlawing of the condemned, sinful usury. We will be most delighted when we will have a fully working e-economy implemented, governed with feudal laws (the Monarch being the sole owner of everything, and then distributing it to his servants). For now this is our main economic goal. Ideas such as promoting our Country by the means of merchandise are possible, but we haven't looked at it in depth yet.
Q: Recently, claims of certain government members having dual allegiances and prioritising those foreign interests have been made. What do you think of this and can you confirm you are one of those solely loyal to Montescano and His Serene Highness?
A: Yes, I've heard these claims, and I believe them to be true. But before I fully discuss this, there should be a distinction made on what it means to have "dual allegiances." As you may already know, our dear Monarch is a citizen in Austenasia. Does this mean our Monarch has dual allegiances? Such claims would constitute lesè-majesté. What allegiance is based on is whether you advance the cause of Montescano or you advance two negating causes, which I reffered to in the statement, albeit in a different context that: "Every kingdom divided against itself, shall be brought to desolation, and house upon house shall fall." I do admit that I hold citizenship in Austenasia, as well as our dear Monarch does, but I do so to fight for the cause of our Monarch. On the other hand, the "foreign elements" in our country (I refrain from naming them for now, but they are pretty obvious) work to ensure the interest and influence of a different state. This is absloutely unacceptable, and could be considered as treason. Time will show if these "foreign elements" reveal themselves, and when they do, they will be brought to justice for their wrongdoing.
Q: We have discussed current happenings within Montescano, but what are you plans for the future? Do you have any future policy proposals or projects you seek to announce?
A: Surely, to have a perspective in the future is important, but one cannot decieve himself as to give it to the zeitgeist. We have our traditionalist framework which we will apply to any challenges that we meet. Regarding our future moves, we are most probably going to sort out our Ecclesial policy, do a population census based on the allegiance to each estate, and perhaps do system changes if our Monarch sees it fit. We will still champion the policy of Independent Montescano, free from the influence of anyone, and we might also add in a "uniting" element, such as uniting other traditionalists and religious people, in order to help destroy the prevaling trend of liberalism within the entire community, that Montescano happens to be a part of.
Q: Thank you for the great pleasure of allowing us to interview you, Your Honour. Do you have any closing words you would wish to add?
A: Thank you very much as well, and for the opportunity to be here. Let me reiterate one of the phrases I mentioned in my statement, but now I will use it as a farewell. For God! For Monarch, Dionysius! For Country, Montescano!