AT The Oculus Report, Robert S. Oculus III writes:

Kevin M. writes:

Laura writes:

I can’t imagine him living in Vermont today.

James P. writes:

Another important rule for us is embodied in Solzhenitsyn’s instruction to “live not by lies”:

Let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood—of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies—or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question. Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed. Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul—don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general—let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.

Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.

A great people of Europe, the Czechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it? You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is the only one for a soul. Not, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

Jane S. writes:

I remember a story I heard about Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, back in the 70s, when he was traveling cross-country speaking at university campuses.

He was driving along Interstate 70 through Western Kansas, which of course is very flat, and he was going at least 100 miles an hour. He was pulled over by the highway patrol , who apparently could not understand a word he said. He was taken to highway patrol station and waited while they rustled up someone who could speak Russian.

A Russian interpreter was located who, after speaking to Mr. Solzhenitsyn, told the highway patrol that this was a very important man, on his way to a speaking engagement, and that he had never heard of such a thing as a speed limit. The highway patrolmen were quite embarrassed, and they told him, “We are very sorry for the inconvenience, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, please be on your way but please don’t exceed the speed limit.” Midwesterners, at least in those days, were shy about celebrities and shy about any kind of publicity.

One can only imagine what Mr. Solzhenitsyn thought of the whole affair, but it was probably the pleasantest encounter he had ever had with the police.

SJF writes:

I thought you might appreciate this blog post by an orthodox Catholic priest. You probably know about him. The first three paragraphs resonated with me.

My approach to dealing with the election was to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Wednesday morning, read as much as I could stomach while trying to focus on work and then come home to a good dinner and two very, very large glasses of wine. I read the readings from the Mass, which were totally on point to our current situation, to my six children and wife, and then we discussed them. I tried to emphasize to our beautiful homeschooled children that we are Roman Catholics who happen to be living in 21st century America, and that our primary allegiance is to Christ and His Church. Our family plan is to immerse ourselves in Catholic culture, and to join with others who want to do likewise. We will hunker down a bit, even though this is the Year of the Faith and the bishops are calling us to evangelize. But we will not be silent, and we will not hide our faith in our house or our church.

I am hopeful, but I am not optimistic.

Lawrence Auster writes:

My only quibble with Robert Oculus’s article is the title and the concluding phrase, “We must now go Solzhenitsyn.” I think it’s too late for that.

Let me explain.

In August 2003 I posted at VFR “A traditionalist’s credo.” Here is the entire entry:

Halfway through a long article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic about the long-range prospects of George W. Bush’s presidency, I came upon this summary of President Reagan’s views on the Soviet Union that I liked very much, especially in the way the author (or rather the president whom he describes) balances two apparently opposite ideas:

President Reagan hor    rified realists and internationalists alike by declaring that the Soviet Union was not a legitimate state. He would deal with the Soviet regime but never accept it. He aimed at regime change.

It occurs to me that President Reagan’s approach provides the key to how one should look at the political and cultural regime of post-Grutter, post-Lawrence America. So here is my credo, or rather my statement of resistance:

I declare that this government is no longer a constitutional and moral form of government. I will deal with it, and I will obey its laws, and I will support it when it is defending our country from foreign and domestic enemies. I will vote in its elections and participate in its political debates. But I will never accept it. I aim at a restoration of constitutional and moral order.

Now the idea of living within America, and still being loyal to it as a country and obeying its laws while rejecting the existing governmental regime and seeking a restoration of constitutional and moral order, is a Solzhenitsyn-type statement. Specifically, it is the statement of a dissident. The dissidents including Solzhenitsyn rejected the Soviet regime and looked forward to its fall and replacement by a different order.

However, I no longer believe that it is possible to restore constitutional and moral order to the United States. I think the United States, as a constitutional society led by a traditional moral ethos, is gone and is not coming back.

In short, the age of the dissident is past. It is now time to look to build a new society or new societies, perhaps within the existing territory of the U.S., but not part of the U.S.

I have always been patriotic. I have always loved the United States. I have always rejected calls to secede. I have always said that no matter how bad things were, we should not give up the hope, as small as it was, that we could reverse the liberal, nihilist, and racial transformation of America and bring back the real America. I used to suggest scenarios of how that could happen. I always made a point of ending my blog articles, no matter how negative the subject matter, with the reminder that the course of things could be turned around.

 But a year ago there was a change in my thought, and I began to think that it is not possible for liberalism to be rejected, short of the destruction of the United States itself. The presidential election has now crystalized that view into the view that the U.S. is gone and cannot be saved.

As long as you reject the current regime, but think that a traditional society can be restored, you are a Solzhenitsyn-type dissident. It is now too late to be a dissident, because the United States is so far gone that it cannot be saved.

Please follow and like us: