’Onze vrijheid is op hol geslagen’ door Yoram STEINin Trouw, 24 augustus 2006.

,,Filosofen spelen onmiskenbaar een belangrijke rol in het publieke debat’’, zegt Ad Verbrugge. Dat is misschien de reden dat hij komende zondag als eerste filosoof in Nederland is uitgenodigd om een televisieavond samen te stellen bij ’Zomergasten’ van de VPRO.

Waarom filosofen zichtbaarder in de media aanwezig zijn? Het heeft volgens Ad Verbrugge alles te maken met de tijdgeest. De jaren negentig waren de jaren waarin Nederland onder het paarse kabinet van Kok ’de ideologische veren had afgeschud’. De twee aartsvijanden van weleer – socialisten en liberalen – waren tot een compromis gekomen dat beide partijen leek te bevallen. Over morele vraagstukken werd niet al te moeilijk gedaan. Euthanasie, abortus, prostitutie: het moest allemaal kunnen. Tolerantie was het toverwoord, de multiculturele samenleving het paradijs waar de mensheid in al die eeuwen naar op zoek was geweest. Voor filosofische reflectie over maatschappelijke vraagstukken leek weinig noodzaak te bestaan. Alleen voor levensfilosofie leek er een markt te zijn.

Ook internationaal was door het einde van de Koude Oorlog de indruk ontstaan dat het tijdperk van de hevige religieuze, ideologische en morele conflicten achter ons lag – wat door de Amerikaanse filosoof Francis Fukuyama kernachtig is omschreven als ’het einde van de geschiedenis’.

Maar in het nieuwe millennium werd duidelijk dat dit alles slechts schijn was. Elf september liet zien dat er nog steeds felle religieuze, ideologische en morele strijd bestond, en dat de geschiedenis niet voorbij was.

Verbrugge: „Pim Fortuyn bracht de sluimerende onvrede in de Nederlandse samenleving met betrekking tot het multiculturele ideaal naar boven. Vooral in de confrontatie met de islam werden veel Nederlanders met de neus gedrukt op de vraag waar zij eigenlijk voor stonden. Waar geloven wij dan in? Is er voor ons ook iets heilig? Het is vanwege deze vragen dat filosofen een belangrijker rol zijn gaan spelen in het publieke debat.’’

In het antwoord op deze vragen wordt één waarde bijzonder vaak genoemd: vrijheid. Dat lijkt een van de meest bepalende richtinggevende idealen van onze cultuur te zijn. In onze politiek, in onze zogeheten vrije markt, in ons rechtssysteem, in ons onderwijsstelsel, in de media, en in onze persoonlijke levenssfeer laten wij ons sterk door dit beginsel van de vrijheid leiden. Verbrugge denkt daarom dat het belangrijk is om een beter begrip te krijgen van wat vrijheid ’eigenlijk’ betekent. Het idee van de persoonlijke vrijheid is in onze cultuur volgens hem namelijk ’ontaard’.

Verbrugge: „Het punt is dat idealen er op papier prachtig uit kunnen zien, terwijl ze in de praktijk niet werken. Dat was bijvoorbeeld het geval bij het reëel bestaande communisme. Nu zie je dat ook met betrekking tot het vrijheidsideaal in onze consumptiemaatschappij.’’

Hoe wordt het ideaal van de vrijheid namelijk doorgaans gedefinieerd? Als het niet door anderen belemmerd worden in je keuzes, als iets negatiefs, als ongebondenheid, als het vermogen om je ongehinderd over te kunnen geven aan je verlangens. Om te beginnen wordt daarbij vergeten, zegt Verbrugge, dat de eigen verlangens zo groot kunnen worden dat het de vraag is of je niet beter van verslaving dan van vrijheid kunt spreken. „Exemplarisch hiervoor is de figuur van de junk. Waarom zeggen we dat de junk ’depersonaliseert’? Hij doet toch wat hij wil? Hij bevredigt toch zijn eigen behoeften? Kennelijk is dat niet zo. Zo’n leven spat uit elkaar door zijn eigen consumptie. De junk is een dramatische uitvergroting van wat er met mensen in de consumptiemaatschappij kan gebeuren.’’

Verder is het zo dat bij het populaire vrijheidsconcept de nadruk te sterk op het ’ik’ alleen ligt, vindt Verbrugge. „Mensen vergeten dat individuele vrijheid onmogelijk is zonder een gemeenschap die mij die vrijheid geeft, ook in juridische zin. Het woord ’vrijheid’ is etymologisch verwant aan de woorden ’vrijen’ en ’vriend’. Het aspect van de gezamenlijkheid is heel erg van belang. Maar weinig mensen voelen zich werkelijk vrij op het moment dat zij volkomen genegeerd worden door anderen. Je hebt dan wel de ruimte om alles te doen wat je wilt, maar die vrijheid is een leegte. Je verschijnt niet in de ogen van anderen, behalve dan als een toevallig object. Om werkelijk vrij te zijn, moet je ook door anderen erkend worden. Mensen willen niet alleen formeel erkend worden als voor de wet vrij en gelijk. Zij willen erkend worden omwille van datgene wat ze presteren, en ze willen erkend worden als de unieke persoon die zij zijn. Dat laatste is de reden dat veel leerlingen wegkwijnen in anonieme leerfabrieken en veel bejaarden in onpersoonlijke verzorgingstehuizen. Het verdwijnen van persoonlijke verhoudingen is dodelijk voor mensen.’’

’Belevingssolipsisme’ noemt Verbrugge de schijnvrijheid die het ik losmaakt van de maatschappelijke context, waarin het ik zich enkel nog richt op eigen verlangens. Het individu sluit zich dan als het ware op in een isolement – iets wat je bijvoorbeeld ziet bij jongeren die zich door middel van een koptelefoon afsluiten voor de rest van de wereld.

Tegenover deze ’gevangenis van de eigen beleving’ staat volgens Verbrugge ’de ruimte’ die voor een belangrijk deel gecreëerd moet worden door middel van goed onderwijs.

,,Goed onderwijs is bedoeld om je te verruimen’’, stelt de voorzitter van de vereniging Beter Onderwijs Nederland (BON). „De docent is daarbij een soort gids die voor de leerlingen een wereld doet opengaan en hen objectieve vormen van kennis en kunde bijbrengt, ook door hen bij de les te houden. Hij neemt daarbij verantwoordelijkheid en loopt vooruit op de ontwikkeling van dat kind. Een kind weet namelijk zelf nog niet goed waartoe hij in staat is, en wat de rijkdom is die hij kan verwerven. Daar moet een docent hem bij helpen. In plaats van aansluiten bij de belevingswereld van de leerlingen, probeert de goede docent leerlingen juist te bevrijden uit hun subjectieve belevingswereld, en ze de diepte en de betekenis van een gemeenschappelijk vormgegeven wereld te laten zien. Een wereld die niet bestaat uit atomistische individuen, maar uit ’gedeelde vormen’.’’

Verbrugge: „Voor opvoeding en onderwijs zijn gedeelde vormen noodzakelijk. Denk aan omgangsvormen of aan spelregels. Je kunt alleen zelfstandig opereren binnen die gedeelde vormen. Op het moment dat die gedeelde vormen verdwijnen, wordt het niet alleen vrijwel onmogelijk om mensen nog te vormen, maar ook om erkenning te krijgen en ergens in thuis te zijn. Wanneer ben je geslaagd of doe je iets echt goed? Zonder dergelijke vormen zijn er geen objectieve criteria meer, en dat maakt mensen richtingloos.’’

Met BON hoopt Verbrugge aandacht te vragen voor de volgens hem ’deplorabele staat van het onderwijs’. „Ook in het onderwijs wordt nu namelijk gedacht dat kinderen vrij en ongebonden hun eigen leerproces moeten vormgeven. Ze moeten het ’leuk’ vinden, zoals ze het ook ’leuk’ vinden om te worden vermaakt door de consumptiecultuur. Daarbij moeten ze vooral niet te veel opgedrongen krijgen van anderen – van de docent met name. Dat zou immers een inbreuk op hun individuele vrijheid en zelfstandigheid zijn, en dat mag je ze natuurlijk niet aandoen.’’

De docent die van zijn vak houdt wordt al sinds enige jaren weggezet als ’een vakidioot’, zegt Verbrugge. ,,Als iemand die te veel waarde hecht aan kennis die er voor leerlingen eigenlijk niet toe doet. Waar het om zou gaan, is de individuele leerling. Maar daar ging het deze bevlogen docenten natuurlijk altijd al om, waarschijnlijk meer dan bij de vele onderwijshervormers het geval is. Gedegen vakkennis staat, mede door deze hervormers, niet meer centraal in het onderwijs, en daar worden generaties leerlingen de dupe van. Dat ook de docent altijd nog moet leren, wordt gebruikt als een argument om ongekwalificeerde mensen voor de klas te kunnen zetten. Inderdaad is het zo dat een leraar levenslang blijft leren, maar het is toch ook niet zo dat Johan Cruijff nog moet leren voetballen? De leerlingen hebben door deze jarenlange aanval op de vakdocent geen voorbeeld meer voor de klas staan van mensen die uitmunten.’’

Verbrugge pleit daarom samen met de BON voor een herwaardering van de vakdocent. Maar het is de vraag of dit niet een te idealistisch streven is. Er zijn geen wis- en natuurkundedocenten meer te krijgen voor het vwo. Voor Frans en Duits ziet het er niet veel beter uit. Moeten we niet accepteren dat het tijdperk van de hoogopgeleide, kwalitatief goede vakdocent voorbij is?

„Je moet je eerst afvragen hoe het komt dat er in Nederland nauwelijks nog academici te krijgen zijn die het onderwijs in willen. Waarom is het in Finland geen probleem? Als kinderen één vak van binnenuit hebben gezien dan is dat het vak van leraar, en op basis van wat ze gezien hebben, besluiten ze: dát wil ik dus nooit!

Bovendien gaat het hier om het formuleren van een ideaal van wat goed onderwijs is. Wij willen goed opgeleide, gekwalificeerde en bezielende docenten voor de klas. Maar ik weet ook wel dat wat in decennia is afgebroken niet binnen een paar jaar weer opgebouwd kan worden. Daarvoor staan onze eigen gecorrumpeerde opvattingen van wat vrijheid is ons te zeer in de weg. Het is namelijk makkelijker om instituties, zoals het onderwijs, onder het mom van het vrijheidsstreven kapot te maken dan om ze weer op te bouwen.’’

Bron: Trouw

Welcome to Neo-Fascism 101 door Andrew BOSWORTH op Virtualcitizens, 14 augustus 2006.

Neo-conservatives decided that World War III is to be waged against “Islamic-Fascists” or “Islamo-Fascism.”

Who is reading from the new script? William Kristol, Bill O’Reilly, Christopher Hitchens, Michelle Mankin, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Nick Cohen, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Daniel Pipes, Glenn Beck, Oliver North – even George W. Bush, prompting legitimate complaints from Muslim-Americans.

Middle Eastern powers include pan-Arab socialist dictatorships (Syria), monarchies (Saudi Arabia), constitutional theocracies (Iran), and assorted fundamentalist movements. None are “fascist.” For three decades of political scientists, “fascism” is a phenomenon of industrialized societies and exhibits features alien to the Middle East.

Classical fascism was evident in inter-war Italy, Germany and Japan, and full-blown fascism exhibits three dimensions: economic, political and cultural.

1. Economic fascism is based a merger of big business and big government. Sometimes, a formal corporatism emerges; other times, the private sector (monopolies and oligopolies) simply pass over into the public sector (as in the US), capturing the state and using it to wage that most profitable of activities: war. This later scenario is what happened in the United States, and the incestuous relationship between Big Business and Big Government ushered in a new Gilded Age of cronyism and corruption. Benito Mussolini was clear: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”

For the Middle East, the preconditions of mature capitalism (and thus fascism) simply do not exist.

2. Political fascism normally includes, as it did for Italy and Germany, a retreat from already-existing democratic practices – an erosion of democracy. The political class begins to express a disdain for human rights and international treaties, lashing out at pillars of civilization like France. Power is increasingly centered on the executive branch, and elections become less transparent, even fraudulent. Civil liberties are restricted, and constitutions are ground under the hobnailed boot.

Political fascism always depicts dissent as treason, and there is an obsession with scapegoats and plots. There are frequent mixed messages about the enemy: the enemy is strong, then weak; the enemy is important; then irrelevant. Today, the Party depicts Hezbollah as having unlimited funds from Iran and, simultaneously, selling pirated DVDs and fake Viagra in your town.

Political fascism is based on militant nationalism, pseudo-populism and an adoration of military power. As Huey Long said, former Governor of Louisiana: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag.” For different reasons, these values tend to resonate among economic elites at the top and the lower middle class at the bottom. In the United States, however, it appears that the lower and working classes are now questioning their leadership – or losing themselves in End of Empire entertainment: pan y circo (bread and circus).

In its advanced stages, political fascism depends upon mass surveillance and, more crucially, eternal war. Italy’s mad adventures in Ethiopia and Germany’s insane and unwinnable two-front war were nursed by the ideology of eternal war.

The only ingredient of classical political fascism missing in the United States is a charismatic leader – but not for lack of trying. In Red States, billboards of George W. “Our Leader” arose, and fundamentalists synchronized Morning Prayer to those of the White House.

Middle East powers – particularly the movements neo-cons describe as “Islamofascist” – are emerging in non-democratic systems. They are also pushing for more, not less, political democracy because the popular classes will catapult them to power and keep them there.

Hamas, for example, won in an election. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood would very much like to go to the polls in more transparent elections. Shia Muslims in Iraq are also keen on voting. Iran’s president won an election handily. And when the dust settles in Lebanon, the next sure winner at the ballot box will be Hezbollah, when Lebanese Christians, Sunnis and Druze will surely wait in lines for hours to endorse this radical Shia group. Democracy, it seems, is about to flourish in the Middle East – it’s just not yielding the puppet regimes hoped for in Washington, London (Airstrip One) or Tel Aviv. Tony Snow claims “they hate democracy.” Don’t be snowed.

Islamic fundamentalist groups compete at the national level, but Islamic fundamentalism is a transnational movement inherently opposed to the pseudo-nationalism necessary for fascism.

3. Cultural fascism is based on a reaction against science, modernity, the arts and intellectualism. It distorts science to accomplish political aims. Cultural fascism always includes strong doses of homophobia.

In the US, for every person with legitimate objections to immigration (objections based on public policy), there must be three people objecting to it based on race, and for them “illegal” becomes a euphemism for “Mexican.” Xenophobia is basic to cultural fascism.

Cultural fascism, in the West, tends towards anti-Semitism. For now, American anti-Semitism has an anti-Arab face. In linguistics and ethnology, the term “Semitic” includes “Arabic” and “Arabs.” A Marriam-Webster definition of “Semite” is clear: “A member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.”

Thus, when neo-con pundits, politicians and even the President employ the term “Islamo-Fascist” they are being anti-Semitic.

Middle Eastern and Islamic movements can be reactionary, but these are reactions to external powers and not to the core dimensions of their own societies, which remain traditional.

So the economic, political and cultural prerequisites of fascism do not exist in the Middle East – but they do exist in the United States. Our post-WWII, Information Age neo-fascism is much like the inter-war classical fascism but softer, lighter, friendlier. Today, instead of marching, we ritually demonstrate our political will on touch-screen pads, a ceremony organized by Party-backed corporations with secret software on private servers.

It’s a race: Will the future look like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where a “dictatorship without tears” is founded upon psychotropic drugs, false religion and biological-sexual engineering? Or will it be a world of brute force like George Orwell’s 1984? “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.” It will be both: A Brave New World for those who conform and 1984 for those who don’t. American fascism will both smile and grimace.

Neo-con pundits follow a clever strategy of deflection. They employ the term “Islamo-Fascism” when “theocracy” or “dictatorship” or “fundamentalist movement” would be more historically accurate. Why do they do this? Their political epithets are inspired by a subtle conditioning campaign.

Perhaps it’s subconscious projection. “Projection,” of course, is a defense mechanism that kicks when someone is threatened by, or afraid of, their own impulse. So they attribute these impulses to someone else. Do not be neo-conned. How can you help?

First, always replace the term “neo-conservatism” with “neo-fascism.”

Second, always charge those who use the term “Islamo-fascism” with anti-Semitism (because Arabs – most of whom are Muslims – are technically “Semitic,” too).

Third, remind people who use the term “Islamo-Fascism” that the term is historically inaccurate and that the main ingredients of classical fascism – 1) monopoly capitalism; 2) erosion of democracy; and 3) militant nationalism – are coming together in the United States like a Perfect Storm.

It’s not fair to perform a vivisection of the Bush regime without pointing to what a healthier body politic might look like – a “post-crisis” body politic.

1) The restoration of the checks and balances, and limited government, of a democratic republic. This includes voter protections and a pencil-paper-box voting system.

2) The restoration of foreign relations to open diplomacy (as envisioned by the Founders) – to the power of persuasion - unless attacked, upon which military force will be restricted to the forces demonstrably responsible. This means no foreign aid, no weapons sales, no forward bases, and no committing political adultery by dividing loyalties between the people of the United States and any foreign power. The American people can express their solidarity with people around the world with short-term disaster relief.

3) Challenging both Israel and Arab powers to follow the letter of international law. Compliance means full participation in an international economy and community (the carrot); and resistance invites the atrophy of embargoes, travel restrictions, and blockages (the stick). Under UN Resolution 181, Israel secures its right to exist according to the 1948 borders, with protection from the United Nations. Simultaneously, Israel withdraws all of its settler colonies from the West Bank, illegal under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” And Jerusalem becomes the international city as intended in 1948.

4) Challenging the world’s people and states with a transformative proposal: universal nuclear disarmament. If states do not disarm, take the proposal to their peoples. Inspired, motivated and determined, masses of people will quickly sideline both foot-dragging politicians and terrorists. The best weapon against terror is not the US Army; it is civilized men and women everywhere. The world is ready to make nuclear weapons - and then war - extinct.

Thomas Paine: “We have it in our power to make the world new again.”

Bron: Virtual Citizens

The Rebel: An Interview with Dominique Venner door GAËTAN op JI Séquanie, 2006.

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE: It’s testament to the abysmal state of our culture that hardly one of Dominique Venner’s more than forty books have been translated into English. But everything he writes bears directly on us — “us” here referring not specifically to the anglophone world, but to the European world that exists wherever white men still carry on in any of the old ways.

Venner is more than a gifted historian who has made major contributions to the most important chapters of modern, especially 20th-century European history. He has played a key role in both the development of the European New Right and the “Europeanization” of continental nationalionalism.

It is his “rebel heart” that explains his engagement in these great struggles, as well as his interests in the Russian Revolution, German fascism, French national socialism, the U.S. Civil War, and the two world wars. The universe I’ve discovered in his works is one that reminds me of Ernst von Salomon’s “Die Geächteten” — one of the Homeric epics of our age.

The following interview is about the rebel. Unlike the racial conservatives dominant in U. S. white nationalist ranks, European nationalism still bears traces of its revolutionary heritage — opposed as it is not merely to the alien, anti-national forces, but to the entire liberal modernist subversion, of which the United States has been the foremost exemplar. -Michael O’Meara

Question: What is a rebel? Is one born a rebel, or just happens to become one? Are there different types of rebels?

Dominique Venner: It’s possible to be intellectually rebellious, an irritant to the herd, without actually being a rebel. Paul Morand [a diplomat and novelist noted for his anti-Semitism and collaborationism under Vichy] is a good example of this. In his youth, he was something of a free spirit blessed by fortune. His novels were favored with success. But there was nothing rebellious or even defiant in this. It was for having chosen the side of the National Revolution between 1940 and 1944, for persisting in his opposition to the postwar regime, and for feeling like an outsider that made him the rebellious figure we have come to know from his “Journals.”

Another, though different example of this type is Ernst Jünger. Although the author of an important rebel treatise on the Cold War, Jünger was never actually a rebel. A nationalist in a period of nationalism; an outsider, like much of polite society, during the Third Reich; linked to the July 20 conspirators, though on principle opposed to assassinating Hitler. Basically for ethical reasons. His itinerary on the margins of fashion made him an anarch, this figure he invented and of which after 1932 he was the perfect representative. The anarch is not a rebel. He’s a spectator whose perch is high above the mud below.

Just the opposite of Morand and Jünger, the Irish poet Patrick Pearse was an authentic rebel. He might even be described as a born rebel. When a child, he was drawn to Erin’s long history of rebellion. Later, he associated with the Gaelic Revival, which laid the basis of the armed insurrection. A founding member of the first IRA, he was the real leader of the Easter Uprising in Dublin in 1916. This was why he was shot. He died without knowing that his sacrifice would spur the triumph of his cause.

A fourth, again very different example is Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Up until his arrest in 1945, he had been a loyal Soviet, having rarely questioned the system into which he was born and having dutifully done his duty during the war as a reserve officer in the Red Army. His arrest, his subsequent discovery of the Gulag and of the horrors that occurred after 1917, provoked a total reversal, forcing him to challenging a system which he once blindly accepted. This is when he became a rebel — not only against Communist, but capitalist society, both of which he saw as destructive of tradition and opposed to superior life forms.

The reasons that made Pearse a rebel were not the same that made Solzhenitsyn a rebel. It was the shock of certain events, followed by a heroic internal struggle, that made the latter a rebel. What they both have in common, what they discovered through different ways, was the utter incompatibility between their being and the world in which they were thrown. This is the first trait of the rebel. The second is the rejection of fatalism.

Q: What is the difference between rebellion, revolt, dissent, and resistance?

DV: Revolt is a spontaneous movement provoked by an injustice, an ignominy, or a scandal. Child of indignation, revolt is rarely sustained. Dissent, like heresy, is a breaking with a community, whether it be a political, social, religious, or intellectual community. Its motives are often circumstantial and don’t necessarily imply struggle. As to resistance, other than the mythic sense it acquired during the war, it signifies one’s opposition, even passive opposition, to a particular force or system, nothing more. To be a rebel is something else.

Q: What, then, is the essence of a rebel?

DV: A rebel revolts against whatever appears to him illegitimate, fraudulent, or sacrilegious. The rebel is his own law. This is what distinguishes him. His second distinguishing trait is his willingness to engage in struggle, even when there is no hope of success. If he fights a power, it is because he rejects its legitimacy, because he appeals to another legitimacy, to that of soul or spirit.

Q: What historical or literary models of the rebel would you offer?

DV: Sophocles’ Antigone comes first to mind. With her, we enter a space of sacred legitimacy. She is a rebel out of loyalty. She defies Creon’s decrees because of her respect for tradition and the divine law (to bury the dead), which Creon violates. It didn’t mater that Creon had his reasons; their price was sacrilege. Antigone saw herself as justified in her rebellion.

It’s difficult to choose among the many other examples. . . . During the War of Succession, the Yankees designated their Confederate adversaries as rebels: “rebs.” This was good propaganda, but it wasn’t true. The American Constitution implicitly recognized the right of member states to succeed. Constitutional forms had been much respected in the South. Robert E. Lee never saw himself as a rebel. After his surrender in April 1865, he sought to reconcile North and South. At this moment, the true rebels emerged, who continued the struggle against the Northern army of occupation and its collaborators.

Certain of these rebels succumbed to banditry, like Jesse James. Others transmitted to their children a tradition that has had a great literary posterity. In the “Vanquished,” one of William Faulkner’s most beautiful novels, there is, for example a fascinating portrait of a young Confederate rebel, Drusilla, who never doubts the justice of his cause or the illegitimacy of the victors.

Q: How can one be a rebel today?

DV: How can one not! To exist is to defy all that threatens you. To be a rebel is not to accumulate a library of subversive books or to dream of fantastic conspiracies or of taking to the hills. It is to make yourself your own law. To find in yourself what counts. To make sure that you’re never “cured” of your youth. To prefer to put everyone up against the wall rather than to remain supine. To pillage in this age whatever can be converted to your law, without concern for appearance.

By contrast, I would never dream of questioning the futility of seemingly lost struggles. Think of Patrick Pearse. I’ve also spoken of Solzhenitsyn, who personifies the magic sword of which Jünger speaks, “the magic sword that makes tyrants tremble.” In this Solzhenitsyn is unique and inimitable. But he owed this power to someone who was less great than himself. To someone who should gives us cause to reflect. In “The Gulag Archipelago,” he tells the story of his “revelation.”

In 1945, he was in a cell at Boutyrki Prison in Moscow, along with a dozen other prisoners, whose faces were emaciated and whose bodies broken. One of the prisoners, though, was different. He was an old White Guard colonel, Constantin Iassevitch. He had been imprisoned for his role in the Civil War. Solzhenitsyn says the colonel never spoke of his past, but in every facet of his attitude and behavior it was obvious that the struggle had never ended for him. Despite the chaos that reigned in the spirits of the other prisoners, he retained a clear, decisive view of the world around him. This disposition gave his body a presence, a flexibility, an energy that defied its years. He washed himself in freezing cold water each morning, while the other prisoners grew foul in their filth and lament.

A year later, after being transferred to another Moscow prison, Solzhenitsyn learned that the colonel had been executed. “He had seen through the prison walls with eyes that remained perpetually young. . . . This indomitable loyalty to the cause he had fought had given him a very uncommon power.” In thinking of this episode, I tell myself that we can never be another Solzhenitsyn, but it’s within the reach of each of us to emulate the old White colonel.

French Original
“Aujourd’hui, comment ne pas être rebelle?”

JI Séquanie

Interview Faye mogelijk leugen !

Hoax : fausse interview de Guillaume Faye par France-Echos

On nous signale que plusieurs sites internet, dont forum.subversiv.com et fr.altermedia.info, ont publié une « Interview de Guillaume Faye » où l'intéressé répondrait à des questions posées par « France-Echos ». C'est un hoax : Guillaume Faye n'a JAMAIS été interviewé par un quelconque rédacteur de notre site qui n'a JAMAIS publié la moindre interview de Guillaume Faye.

France-Echos

Opération de désinformation contre Guillaume Faye

Depuis quelques jours, plusieurs sites internet (dont le forum.de subversiv.com) publient une interview de Guillaume Faye dans laquelle l’intéressé, répondant aux questions du site france-echos.com, défend une ligne politique étonnement pro-sioniste. Faye en profite pour régler ses comptes avec certains anciens amis de la Nouvelle Droite. Sous le titre « Guillaume Faye avoue », Altermedia.info s’est immédiatement fait l’écho de cet entretien en présentant l’interviewé comme «l’idéologue en chef de Terre et peuple et de la mouvance mongolo-identitaire.» (sic !) Bien entendu, on imagine les réactions pour le moins épidermiques qui s’en sont suivies. Rien que de très classique…

Zie verder: Novopress France

En opnieuw Michael O'Meara over het Faye-interview

On July 30, I wrote “Guillaume Faye and the Jews,”which was posted at VNN on July 31. This shortarticle was based on an interview that Faye allegedly gave to the Zionist site “France-Echos” and which appeared on the web in the forum of subversive.com.
The latter is an unreadable site I never visit, but it was announced at and apparently vouched for by the credible AMI France (fr.altermedia.info). Based on
these sources, my article reported that the ardent anti-Islamism of Europe’s foremost ethnonationalist seemed to have morphed into an equally ardent form of
Zionism, for in the alleged interview Faye not only depicted the Hebrew state as Europe’s geopolitical pivot, but the Jews as an integral part of Europe’s
biocivilization. Such a stance constituted a flagrant contradiction to everything Faye had previous stood for and was a shock to myself and to all who saw Faye
as our most brilliant light.

Vanguard News Network

Reactie van Michael O'Meara in VanguardNewsNetwork op Faye's interview, 31 juli 2006.

By Michael O’Meara

Few postwar thinkers in my view have played a greater role in ideologically resisting the forces assaulting Europe’s incomparable bioculture than Guillaume Faye. This was publicly evident at the international conference on “The White World’s Future” held in Moscow in June of this year, which he helped organize. It’s even more evident in the six books he’s written in the last seven years and in the innumerable articles, interviews, and conferences in which he’s alerted Europeans to the great challenges threatening their survival.

In this spirit he has developed an “archeofuturist” philosophy that takes its inspiration from the most primordial and Faustian urgings of our people’s spirit; he has incessantly warned of the threat posed by the Third World, specially Islamic, invasion of the former white homelands; he has promoted European collaboration with Russia and made the case for a white imperium stretching from Dublin to Vladivoskov;
he privileges biopolitics over cultural or party politics; he’s developed a theory of the interregnum that explains why the existing system of subversion will soon collapse; and he’s successfully promoted anti-liberal ideas and values in a language and style that transcends the often ghettoized discourse of our movement.

Zie voor het gehele artikel op Vanguard News Network