Interview by the Evrasian Youth Movement
Tell us about yourself, your Weltanschauung. Can you describe yourself as an adherent of conservative-revolutionary or the new right movement?
I consider myself a solidarist. My Weltanschauung is that of the New-Solidarist Alternative (N-SA). All the people in the world have a right to their own sovereign development, their own destiny, territory, local identity and future. In this sense, I am Flemish (Dutch part of Belgium) and assume my position as part of the Flemish people. The concept conservative-revolutionary is complicated and tends to suggest a contradiction. I prefer to keep it to national-revolutionary.
1. National – because a people needs borders in order to affirm and develop itself. History has proven the lack of borders will lead to the eventual demise of a people, as they are prone to outside influence. Take the Native Americans for example. The science of geopolitics teaches us about the connection between power and affirmation of a people, in connection to its geographical territory. One of the aspects which made Russia a world power, is simply its sheer size as the largest country in the world. All current super powers have a certain amount of territory, a division in this territory is what keeps a geographical whole weak. We of the N-SA believe the Flemish should break free from the Belgian – Atlanticist – caste. The result of breaking free would lead tot the further division of North-Western Europe, but after ending the Belgian stalemate, we can work towards clustering the whole riverdelta (Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt), which is currently divided in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and parst of France and Germany. This Delta-Union is an interesting geopolitical case. It might seem odd in the current political climate to opt for such clustering, but imagine telling the original leaders of Kiev-Russia – Rurik – their Russia would someday encompass all the land up to Alaska. History has its way with things. Russia did what it had to in order to be able to affirm its Russian identity. We are essentially striving for the same thing.
2. Revolutionary – because we want to do away with the people and ideas currently in power. The current leaders of European nations conduct policies against the interests of its peoples. One of the known practices is mass-immigration as a means to keep wages low, though these days it’s not limited to Europe either. We plead for a humane solution which can protect our people against the greed of international finance. But to elaborate on that, we would have to go beyond the scale and scope of this interview. I consider myself a revolutionary because a healthy society demands a healthy social system. People are not products. They have both a physical and metaphysical dimension. In our tough liberal society, people are considered like cattle. It is revolutionary in Western Europe to go against this ruthless policy. It is revolutionary in Europe to restore the metaphysical dimension, to strive for a state of unity, economic corporatism and freedom. It is revolutionary to go against the international oligarchs and their ever-increasing pressure on our liberties, now for example entering a potential new phase with technologic apparel such as chip implants.
Though if we were to go deeper into the definition of a conservative-revolutionary movement, we can be considered a part of this international and historic current. Our ethics are both conservative and revolutionary at that, as we believe in combining state and society as key concept in restoring respect for life, for past, present and future without reactionary means.
What the main task of Euro-Rus? Can you tell us about this organization, when it was founded what are the main ideological principles it is guided by?
Presently, Euro-Rus has become the geopolitical thinktank of the New-Solidarist Alternative. Geopolitics in this sense is using geographically-founded arguments to coincide with national goals. Years ago we came to the conclusion the chances for survival of the European peoples is highest if we become best buddies in one way or another. Too often, international finance has played continental forces against each other, with the death of millions as a result. Europeans should never be at war. I would love world peace, but let’s not get any utopian hopes up. It’s not utopian to strive for lasting peace within the continent. The Anglo-Saxon agenda for decades has been about instigating fear for a Russian nuclear attack and supposed concentration camps. This myth has been crushed completely. Nevertheless, the Western media tries to keep portraying Russia as our arch enemy. Amongst other goals, Euro-Rus tries to rectify this image of Russia in our regions. Euro-Rus, and with that the N-SA, strives for a geopolitical axis from Gibraltar to Vladivostok, or to put it in another way: the axis Paris-Berlin-Moscow. We do not support merging all European countries into one big European empire, as this is too far from any kind of realism. This has never been the case in Europe at any rate. Some kind of United States of Europe would not be in the interest of the European people. Euro-Rus is for strong continental relations, and Russia is pivotal in this, and we are opposed to the American cultural hegemony.
I myself am the Coordinator for Foreign Relations and the coordinator for the geopolitical thinktank Euro-Rus. I am often asked to explain our geopolitical ideas and theoretical basis. Euro-Rus has organized several conventions and debates in the past with a very diverse list of guestspeakers as a means to address an equally diverse set of issues.
What role should Russia play in Europe? How can be developed cooperation between Russia and Europe? What is Russia for you personally and for Europe as geopolitical entity?
Russia is of extreme importance to European countries. Russia is the current “Heartland” if we set out from Mackinder’s theorem. He who controls the Heartland, controls the world. It goes without saying this has been a prime consideration in the Atlanticist attempts to surround Russia. Let me be clear about this: Europe has no chance for survival without Russia and Russia can’t keep its Western flank uncovered. We need each other. I know Russian patriots who are convinced Russia can go without Europe, but I consider that erroneous. A Slavophile agenda would have been understandable a century ago. But now, they are moving away from the West because – again, very understandable – we have been a gateway for decadence. Berdjajev and Solovjov have written good stuff about this. A Slavic form of patriotism is understandable when confronted with this.
We know the politics in the West of the continent are dictated by Atlanticism. Just as we know some Russian oligarchs still use their power to hold a certain influence. It is in the interest of international finance Europe remains fragmented and polarized. We state that, despite our political elites, we should not be torn apart. We can’t afford falling into the trap of yet another continental war. We all know the reason for NATO’s continued existence since the end of the Warsaw pact.
If greater continental cooperation can be achieved between Russia and the European nations, we would eclipse the Atlanticist agenda as the greatest economy and military force in the world. This is the only way to break the American hegemony. It should be clear the USA is not in the interest of the European nations, take for example the bombardments in Serbia.
European Friends of… (Russia, Belarus, Serbia, Iran, Syria). How is Euro-Rus connected to these organizations? Can you tell us about their activities?
The European Friends collective is a part of Euro-Rus, which in its turn is a part of the N-SA. It is a means for people to better understand our geopolitical vision and to have a banner under which we can address the nations which we find crucial in this vision.
Take for example the European Friends of Iran. For the N-SA, any form of anti-islam populism is out of the question. We don’t believe the islamist influence (as a result of mass-immigration) is a viable alternative for American culture – we would never go as far as to actively promote islamization considering we have many indigenous religions and cultures – but we understand islam in itself does not pose a problem. The problem is not situated in a debate about its quality, but about its quantity. The workers surplus in our regions is far too concentrated, Europe is overpopulated in respect to its territory. The surplus, caused by organised mass-immigration, should be able to remigrate to their countries of origin in a humane fashion. To make this a credible alternative we believe European nations need to establish good relations with islamist nations, Iran being a crucial one. We believe all nations have to right to their own form of sovereign identity. The Iranian people also have this right. No nation should tell another nation what to do. The anti-Atlanticist policy Iran conducts, together with its central geographical position, makes it crucial in the struggle for a continental geopolitical alternative. Syria is an important ally to Iran and they too share the active anti-American policy.
Another nation we have a European Friends network for is Serbia, which more like hold the role of a symbolic victim these days, but nevertheless its people are a potent force. Perhaps people will start a European Friends of Palestine network in the future for the same reasons. Belarus has always taken an active stance against ‘color revolutions’ such as the ‘Orange Revolution’ in the Ukraine. Naturally, our Russian network of European Friends went without saying.
For the moment, the European Friends do little more than inform and establish relations behind the screens. But public activities should result from these efforts in a later stage of course.
The New Solidarist Alternative, what new is proposed by this project? Can it change today’s situation in Europe and Belgium?
The N-SA is unique in Flanders, Belgium. Pretty much every patriot movement in our country is ultra-liberal. They are unanimously Atlanticist. Some even go as far as to travel to the USA and declare “America, we fight for you”. The N-SA vehemently opposes this nationwide Stockholm Syndrome.
We differ in our economic vision as well. We are for a social economic policy, one which would benefit the national classes as a whole and not just a minority of national and (more importantly) international elites. We may lose a few “friends” in Russia, but we believe natural resources for example should benefit the whole and not the few.
We plead for a territory which is often called “Whole Netherlandicism”, the regions within the riverdelta as stated in the beginning of the interview, though we don’t look at it from a nostalgic viewpoint. It is out of utilitarian means, as a geostrategic counterbalance to the European Union.
We clearly state a withdrawal from the monetary Eurozone, the European Union and the NATO. The current avalanche of problems the EU and the Euro have caused proves we have correctly predicted its consequences several years ago. We now predict a post-European context, for which European nations should prepare.
In many ways, the N-SA has been a forerunner, an avant-garde. We were the first to work out a realistic and humane policy for remigration of our immigrant economic surplus as an alternative for integration. Others have now taken parts of this general idea, though they lack depth and realism. Same goes for our economic policy.
A journalist who made a documentary about us for the Flemish national television, the VRT, told us our movement has the most ideological depth of the entire national political spectrum.
We therefore are somewhat of an outlier in Flanders, but we are pretty proud of this peripheral position.
What do you think about European future? The main trends within the EU, show they the signs of optimism or not? What do you think about the future of Belgium?
About Europe’s future... it doesn’t look too bright. Studies show by the year 2020 many of the major cities will have immigrant majorities. The Flemish, just like all other European people, are dying. The European Union supports this course of events. We shouldn’t forget the original name of the EU, the “European Economic Union”. The EU is made by economists in the interest of globalists, not in the interest of the people. The economists have designed the EU as a means to have as many unemployed candidates for every employed worker. This keeps the wages low and profits high.
EU-Optimism is something for the estranged. On the stock exchange, there is massive speculation as a prelude to the Euro’s downfall. After Greece, next in line will probably be Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Belgium. Germany is already preparing, they are investigating the return of the... Deutsche Mark! The EU is an internally and externally ever expanding monstrosity which needs to be stopped.
Belgium is an artificial state in which its founders, including its first king Leopold I, didn’t even believe. The Belgian economic elite (centered in Brussels) is sucking Flanders dry and neglects Wallonia (the French-speaking part). Belgium is running towards its end. We are not mourning this course of events. We pragmatically wish Flemish secession as a means to evolve towards a strategic union if North-Western Europe.
The Euro-Atlantic or Euro-continentalist future? How can be resolved the spiritual problems of modern Europe? The rise of immigration from the third world countries, does it danger European identity? What should be done?
Euro-Atlanticism is a contradiction. 65 years of US-domination has resulted in pretty much every disease a nation can have. We have lost our traditions, culture, values and norms, our people have lost its identity. The USA can get away with anything, interference in national policy, corporate espionage and brain drain... they are an occupational force in every sense. At every given time, 1.300 US-soldiers are stationed here!
We are for a Euro-continental future. The modern European is a bad copy of the American cartoon. What goes wrong in the USA, is worse in Europe. Patriotism is not an important factor within the EU. We are taught “love for one’s nation equals Auschwitz”. Mass propaganda distorts the meaning of love for one’s people. We need to rediscover and reinvent ourselves to elevate the masses once more.
The import of millions of Third World immigrants is more than a mere danger to our identity. It leads to the destruction. Identity is like a tree: a tree dies without roots. Identity places a people in the world through linking history, present and future in one whole. The German philosopher Herder states every people has a certain predestination. Culture and language are important factors. It’s a part of the soul of a people. Without it, the people dissolves. So we can state: because of mass-immigration, European cultures disappear and are replaced. I don’t think there can be a more apocalyptic scenario.
The only thing we can do is stop immigration and false integration completely and start to organise a humane remigration policy. The European space should retrieve its stability.
“Europe of nations” or “Europe of regions” what do you prefer? or maybe the Old World should turn to the old principle of Empire?
The idea of a great European empire may sound attractive, but is not realist. Today, it’s more like a vehicle for accepting the neo-liberal EU. As part of a regional identity, the Flemish, I support regional recognition within Europe, but I would like to emphasize this does not mean I support nationalism by the kilometer. If Europe keeps getting more regionalized and nation-states die out, any form of continental agenda would be impossible, torn apart by thousands of regional disputes. I understand why the English, French, Spanish, Germans and Russians on the other hand can grasp the concept of Empire. So I believe in some sort of consensus. But it requires a continental orientation and evolution which can prevent this concept to be torn apart internally.
The Old Europe has known several empires in the past, such as England (Great-Britain), France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Germany, but it is very peculiar these empires have been able to rule the world and install thalassocracies, but have never been able to rule over Europe as a whole. Yet it is seen as a single entity today. For Russia, this is different. Russia is a world empire which rules two dimensions of the continent: Europe and Asia, even though the division between the two is artificial. Russia has always been a great empire and even after its amputation of 5 million square kilometres in 1991, it is still the largest country in the world. This has resulted in the Russian people assuming their position from an Empire viewpoint.
What do you think about geopolitical and ideological conceptions of the leader of International Eurasian Movement Alexandr Dougin?
Alexandr Dugin is a living monument. The man knows his area of expertise like no other. I consider him as a great geopolitician. This of course means people tend to differ from his opinion in some minor details, but one can always consider him as a great mentor. As a Russian, he plays his game at home base, since Eurasianism is a distinctively Russian geopolitical vision. His books and publications are recommendable to whoever occupies himself with geopolitics.