Interview with Misa Djurkovic, Part III

The Bigger Picture

8.  Why is this happening.  Is this a case of historical accident?  Do you agree with American and European who say it is all the fault of President Assad or does US support for the rebels—only the “moderate and democratic” rebels, of course—play a part?

The roots of this problem spread deep into neoconservative (neotrotskyite) schemes and are behind the agenda of "democratizing" the Muslim world. It started with Afghanistan and reaches a climax with Arab Spring. There is now massive instability all around MENA (the Middle East and North Africa): the slaughter of Christians, outbursts of radical islamism, and civil wars in Iraq and Syria. In addition to the Americans, the British--and in Syria especially the French--contributed greatly to this disaster. More than 20 million people are now on the move because of these policies of Western countries, and we see that Soros and some other important global players want to transfer at least several million to Europe. Some explain all this as unplanned and the result of the West's irresponsible policies. But there are others who insist that Brookings already in 2009, 2010, published project dealing with possibility of new global immigration waves and transfer of populations. There have existed for at least 20 years plans for a Greater Middle East, for which ISIS, Al nusra and other islamists are very useful tool.
9.  What should have been done when the refugee crisis first was developing?

Ideally speaking, the destabilization of the Middle East should never have occurred. But after the refugee crisis started, I think that Europe should have responded in a preemptive way long ago. There are programs, that were developed in 2007, designed to encourage immigrants to remain in the countries that are origins of immigration, instead of coming to Europe. But they are not implementing them properly. Europe did not foresee the arrival of so huge influx and,consequently, did not for it. And, as the numbers of immigrants increased, the whole system of common asylum and immigration policy fell apart. Now even the Schengen system is in great danger. European states are belatedly asserting their sovereignty. The basic reason for all this is the internal division among Europeans proper, about the issue: Do we need or not need more Muslims in Europe?

10.  Can anything be done now?

Yes. Orban and Zeman, (the Czech PM), the Poles and the Slovaks, and even David Cameron are showing sanity and determination to refuse the settlement of more Muslims in their countries. They are claiming the right to decide who is welcome too cross their border and under which conditions. And they insist that they want to remain Christian countries. We should all support those forces in Europe that are working along these lines. Europe should give more money to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon to keep the refugees there. And above all Europe should work harder to stop wars and further destabilizations in Africa and Middle East. Peace in Syria alone could mean the return of ten millions of people to their homes.

Avatar photo

Thomas Fleming

Thomas Fleming is president of the Fleming Foundation. He is the author of six books, including The Morality of Everyday Life and The Politics of Human Nature, as well as many articles and columns for newspapers, magazines,and learned journals. He holds a Ph.D. in Classics from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and a B.A. in Greek from the College of Charleston. He served as editor of Chronicles: a Magazine of American Culture from 1984 to 2015 and president of The Rockford Institute from 1997-2014. In a previous life he taught classics at several colleges and served as a school headmaster in South Carolina

8 Responses

  1. Dot says:

    I can’t accept all this rationale. Trotsky? He worked for the idea of a permanent revolution and was imprisoned. How about Stalin who came after him? The named countries are claiming the RIGHT to refuse Muslims. Have they forgotten their own sovereignty as nations? Europe should GIVE “more money to Muslim nations of Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon to stop wars and destabilizations in Africa and Middle East?” “Peace in Syria alone could mean the return of ten millions of people to their homes?” Believe that and I’d believe that hades is having a cold wave.

  2. Wallenrod says:

    I agree with Misa that current instability in MENA is the result of neocons’ policies, but their plan was not to “democratize” the area. but to destroy existing, sovereign countries in order to create another section of the NWO. Dot is probably right that giving them more money is not the correct approach. I think the only way is to use the Hungarian approach: build fences, and restore the non-existing borders between the European countries. It would be an uphill battle because Soros et al. will not give up their monstrous creature they have been building for the last 70 years.

  3. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    It might help if I clarify a point. I cannot, obviously, speak for MDj, but Trotsky’s idea of permanent and global revolution caught on in American Leftist circles. To some, it seemed to fit with their revolutionary understanding of America as an exception, a propositional nation, whose system could be exported and imposed. Whatever the reason, the Trots gained considerable influence, and, hating all things Soviet (because of Stalin) and all things Russian (because the leaders of the Trotskyite movement were and are Jews), they became ardent Cold Warriors and cooped the GOP–a sad set of witless and unprincipled scoundrels, easy marks for the Kristols and Podhoretzes, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, et al–where they reign supreme as the nearest thing to intellectuals the Republicans have. When you throw in their Zionism, you have the insane foreign policy of USA, defending and encouraging Islam in the West, while supporting the great persecutor of Muslim and Christian Arabs, Israel.

    Lest anyone get any bright ideas, I respect the Israelis and on balance support them, both because the alternatives are ghastly’and at least in principle we have the same enemies. But, also on balance, our special relationship with our gallant democratic ally in the Middle East has been very costly.

    By the way, undermining sovereignty to globalize the world under a tiny elite of world-controllers is precisely what global democracy is, just as inside USA democracy means destroying the sovereignty of states, the autonomy of families and communities, creating and subsidizing every kind of freakish minority in order to break down any resistance from the ethnic and religious majority. What else could it possibly mean in a country of 300 million with a huge welfare state, open borders, and big signs all, over the Third Wold that say, “Come and get it, the money’s free.” Mr. heller’s favorite topic, in this context, then makes good sense, unless of course, you happen to love your country or care about your grandchildren.

    The American elites, one has to conclude, are, in the long run, suicidal parasites that kill their host.

  4. Dissident says:

    I was quite amused as I read Dr. Fleming’s quip about the Republican Party’s “intellectuals”. The Republicans are constantly whining about big government interfering with the economy, in addition to extolling what they call “family values” or, better yet, “our values” as a society. Needless to say, the Republicans fail time after time in preventing government expansion or protecting those precious family values, but what is even more disconcerting is their obtuse philistinism. Rubio, for example, remarked to great applause in the debate that this country needs “less philosophers and more welders”. While I of course agree that most American intellectuals have a baneful influence on our society and waste money with their unjustified salaries, the last thing our country needs is some blue-collar rhetoric from people running for office about working for a buck instead of gaining an education. This sort of talk shows a blatant indifference to the stranglehold on education, media, and film that the left has.

    We live in a society where the average white person in their 20s with a college degree is an avid supporter of Bernie Sanders. Has it ever occurred to the Republicans that it is time to seriously call in to question the educational system through which such silliness is generated? Of course, that is not possible because most Republicans have been people who very agreeably went through America’s educational system and are trying to meekly cling to some conservative sensibilities while also appearing “respectable”. The extent of Republican intellectual rebellion against the left is to constantly refer to Munich, Munich, Munich, 1938, 1938, and Churchill – which is itself bogus history for the most part. All the neocon intellectuals can do is conjure up hysterical arguments about how so-and-so resembles Hitler. It would be quite clever for a non-establishment candidate to accuse the neocons of being “fascists” or Hitler-like based on their hysterical paranoia over something as trivial as Putin flying planes over Syria; in that case, there would actually be some truth to the charge.

  5. Harry Heller says:

    The only real conservatives today are racial conservatives. Indeed, racial conservatism DEFINES 21st century conservatism. The West is white, but it is being invaded and conquered by nonwhites, who are indeed, for the overwhelming part, morally, culturally, and ideologically inferior to whites. Dr. Fleming ought really to read Charles Murray’s book HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (perhaps also THE BELL CURVE?). For some reason Dr. Murray’s “non-confrontational” style keeps getting him labeled a “neocon” (though I believe he refers to himself as a “libertarian”), but I think that charge is mostly unfair. In his quiet way, he has introduced to broad readerships a number of “heresies” that the leftist enemies of Western survival would prefer not be noticed. These include the abject failure of the welfare state; that human happiness is not wholly subjective, at least where large numbers are concerned; that races differ in IQ, and that such differences largely account for racially disparate economic and sociological outcomes; and, in this context, that whites have produced the vast bulk of the world’s Great Men. What he has yet to do (as far as I know) is attempt to demonstrate the greatest heresy of all: that whites are, AS A RACE, provably ethically superior to all other races. But we are, and that fact is a crucial weapon in the war for our survival.

    The greatest ideological weapon the Left has ever devised is the ludicrous notion that there is something ethically wrong (but what, precisely?) about whites recognizing their own racial/civilizational superiority, and then seeking to preserve the demographic conditions that allow for that superiority. The greatest blow Occidentalists can inflict on the Left is to reestablish the morality of (non-imperialistic, or, if people prefer, “defensive”) racism – and to do so unapologetically on a firm Christian theological foundation. The Right should not give egalitarians one single inch more, and we should start challenging them on everything.

  6. Dot says:

    I think that there are a number of factors that have contributed to the dumbing down of educational standards. One is the introduction of affirmative action, another is a great emphasis on athletics in the major colleges. I’m sure educators know much more than I on this.

    Mr. Heller, I respect you honesty. When I went to the supermarket this week, all cashiers were of a minority race. I use the post office to get my mail and all are of a minority race. Sad isn’t it?

  7. Thomas Fleming says:

    This piece is not about racial theory and the discussion is not about who or who is not a real conservative–whatever in the world that world means today. Rem tene!

  8. Dot says:

    This piece was for me, too divisive and had nothing to do with race but some other things.