Misa Djurkovic Interview, Part II
Part II: The European Context
5. The Germans seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth, with Merkel saying early on that this had to be treated as a humanitarian crisis but later blaming Hungary and Croatia for letting so many migrants into the EU. What do you think she and other EU leaders have in mind?
I just published a book called The Illusion of European Union. One big chapter deala with immigration politics in the EU. It is a mess, that basically comes down to a strong internal fight between ordinary people--which includes even statesmen like Hungary's PM Viktor Orban and the leaders of the Bavarian CSU on one side, and European left liberals, theEU administration, the CEO's of huge companies, and the European Court of Justice on the other side. The first camp is trying to save the traditional Christian Europe made of historical nations and particular cultures, while the other is doing everything to import as many Muslims as it is possible, hoping to turn European into a melting pot and to get more cheap labour. The result is an ongoing conflict, which is best seen in Germany. The CSU is fully supporting Orban, in his attempt to defend Christian Europe, nut even within the CDU there is a strong internal fight between supporters of the two camps. That’s why Merkel is trying to mediate between the two blocks. We also have to keep in mind that the EU is, geopolitically speaking, some kind of American or NATO protectorate so that Merkel and other leaders also must take account of the strong American support for bringing refugees into Europe. George Soros, to take the extreme example, is openly insisting that Europe has to accept a million of immigrant every year.
6. Some EU economists are saying that the migrants are bringing in much-need job skills, while others are warning about the drain on welfare resources.. In the short run, how will this influx affect Europe?
There is a strong liberal propaganda claiming that, for example, economic growth in Italy is based on several millions of African immigrants that flooded it during the last couple of years. In reality, anyone who goes to Italy can witness a society that is disintegrating, with more and more problems breaking out every day. It is true that the demographic situation in Europe is really dramatic and, according to good estimations, it will have to find millions of workers to sustain its pension and welfare system. But what is scandalous is that nobody even speaks about possibility of changing the leftist hedonist value system that brought Europe to such a decline in fertility and vitality. The official ideology claims that it is forbidden to make a encourage--much less put pressure on women--to bear children. Instead of producing babies to increase the domestic population, the ruling class prefers to import more Muslims into Europe. In the short run the immigrants will fill the labour shortage, especially in job areas that require few special skills, and they will help decrease wages, but in the long run this is suicide of Europe as it used to be.
7. The Islamic populations of France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK have already presented a certain amount of trouble. Can we expect an increase in unrest, demonstrations, and terrorism?
As I have already mentioned, left liberals are hoping that with Muslim immigration they will create a melting pot, break the bonds of traditional nationalism, and initiate the transformation of Europe into some sort of hippy community made up of self-centered consumerist individuals. The reality is, however, that European countries are becoming sites for future ethnic and religious conflicts that will turning the EU into a battleground. In my book I emphasized several of these emerging problems: the rapid and aggressive spread of the Sharia legal system as a parallel legal order in European countries, the creation of more and more so called "no-go" zones (areas where non-Muslims dare not enter) in France (750), Sweden (55 according to police sources), Germany, Britain, and Denmark, the ban on pork in public schools in Germany and Austria, and the rise of the extreme right as a reaction to this processes. Of course, Muslim ghettoes in which there are plenty of young men with insufficient education and no job, are becoming strong recruiting centers for ISIS, terrorism, and other violent Islamic movements. I am afraid that it is logical to expect more Charlie Ebdo cases in the future and more conflicts between Muslim immigrants and domestic populations.
From what Misa Djurkovic reported, the greatest threat to the EU is/was the indifference of the domestic population to liberty and the denial that they could be losing it to forces with greater zeal than they.
Perhaps the greatest and underlying threat to the EU is the decline in Christianity that is occurring in the industrialized countries. With that decline a loosening of moral foundations follows that come from Judaeu/ Christian/ Greco/ Roman history.
Dot, The EU was doomed from it’s beginning because it was conceived as an economic union. It is France not Germany that will determine if a counterattack can be inspired this late in the day. So far the right in France is being successfully managed by what Navrozov refers to as a kind of scientific/ technological absolutism that keeps the racist and superstitious traditionalist divided amongst themselves into a political parody of ignorant, mean and ruthless folks who hate women, diversity, workers, foreigners and even their own fellow citizens. So far this canard has worked effectivelyfor the destroyers but for how long,only God knows.
Why are even conservatives so weak? Djurkovic writes of “emerging problems” (“problems”? the extirpation of Western Civilization is a “problem”, like, say, underfunded public pensions, or overly strict environmental regulations?), one of which is allegedly “the rise of the extreme right as a reaction to this processes [sic]”. Why is such a rise, (imo, far too little, far too late) deemed a “problem”? It is in fact an opportunity, and indeed, a prerequisite to the very survival of Europe.
The fundamental issue is the Cult of Diversity itself. Diversity = the death of white nations. But the survival of white nations is and always has been the highest priority of authentic Western conservatism in any of its forms. It is simply appalling how few people, even among conservatives, actually ‘get’ this.
The only really interesting politico-philosophical work being done on the true Right today involves the theoretical integration of conservatism and genetic/racial realism, and ultimately the development of a new [Christian] moral theology of white racial and civilizational survival. Why is the invasion of Europe by refugees (or demographic warriors masquerading as refugees) not recognized by the Catholic Church as an invasion? It has been my contention for more than two decades that Just War theory needs to be substantially updated to reflect geopolitical as well as biological realities.
And there needs to be a whole new theology of race – from the ideological Right. This is an area I am (very slowly) working on.
Mr Heller, there is a certain diversity among white races. Variety within unity and order is not an ugly thing. Again we have caved to the leftist understanding of diversity. Also DNA mapping does not support
the thesis that there exists a pure white civilization in the terms you use as the top priority, although I do acknowledge existence precedes essence. Our prisons are full of existing men and women who were, maybe still are,capable of civility but have matured like feral hogs in a wilderness. A culture of individual Liberty without truth and beauty is no culture at all. Sociology like psychology is the new theology and you have apparently embraced it.
Race is a perfectly valid taxonomical category (as the late Philippe Rushton argued). DNA analysis can predict the race of a person from a drop of his blood with better than 99% accuracy. Race is real, and the commonsense approach to race (Trump is white, Carson black, etc) is accurate. Europe is white; Africa is black. By “Diversity” we refer, in common political understanding, to the artificial territorial integration (mixing) of different biological races. This has been an utter disaster for the white race (mainly because we are only lowered, never raised, by such mixture), and now threatens our race with outright extinction. Preventing that white extinction is the very essence of contemporary conservatism. Western Civ is first and foremost a product of European DNA; without the latter (and in numerical preponderance), the former will die. I cannot take seriously as a thinker (or political activist) any self-styled conservative who does not place opposition to the nonwhite invasion as the highest political concern at this time.
I used to know Phil Rushton and read some of his work. I am sorry to hear t hat he is dead,l but, then, I don’t keep up much with the racialist right. Even when they are correct, they are tedious and often ill-mannered.
Rushton was excellent when he stayed on the level of analysis where he knew something, but of no great utility when he beyond it. The main trouble with racism is that it is terribly terribly trite and boring. It is true, in the same way that liberal economics is true, but it is also terrifyingly simplistic, as all partial truths are when they masquerade as the whole truth. It’s a bit like the watch-stealing Durocher’s quip that “Winning isn’t the most important thing, it’s the only thing.” That is the statement of a lowlife, as Durocher was.
And, if I might speak quite frankly in general terms, most racists–I am not now speaking of my many racialist friends who have other interests in life–are not only boring but losers. They don’t go out with, much less marry, attractive women; they have few interests, whetehr sports or art or music, because they wojldn’t dream, of listening to a Jewish or Negro pianist; they have serious troubles with their weight, partly because they lack a sense of balance and proportion; they only exercise they get is looking down on their racial inferiors who are often better human beings than they are. I don’t have many black friends these days, because it is hard, but I have met a few in recent years whose company I prefer to that of knee-jerk racialists.
I used to know more than a few Nordicists, and–this is really pathetic–who tried to argue either that the Greeks and Romans were true Nords–or that civilization reached just as high a plane among Celts and Germans, whom they regarded as the same ethnicity. Language means nothing, only the GREAT GOD RACE. Someone apparently told Wilmot Robertson this, because I was ridiculed by Instauration–probably not by Robertson who had good manners–for preferring Mediterannean culture to the Herring-gobbling beer-swilling bestialists of the North. [Confession: Because I am not a racialist, I have many Scandinavian friends whom I admire. My dirty racial secret is that I had a Norwegian great-grandfather.]
So long as racists/racialists contine to sing their one-note song, they will never achieve even their rather limited goals, because they can never treat a political or social issue pragmatically on its own terms, which means that they lack the will and the focus to stick to a point of discussion. Worse, they will render themselves incapable of enjoying life. I would say they are self-castrating pigs, but pigs would never be so foolish.
I am reminded of an old joke that needs some addenda. The joke had to do with an English composition class given in a school with international students. The assignment was to write an essay on the elephant. The German wrote an essay on the taxonomy of the elephant, the Frenchman composed a theme on the sexlife of the elephant, while the Jewish student wrote, “The elephant–and the terrible problem of anti-Semitism.”
These days, the black student would write on the merciless slaughter of gentle dark-skinned elephants, the libertarian would write on the benefits of the illegal trade in ivory, and the racialist would praise the superiority of Indo-European over African elephants, and demand that they be kept segregated in zoos.
MR. Heller there is one important thing I agree with you about. One of my favorite teachers who taught Shakespeare at Columbia for years once wrote ” The modern poet scarcely gets started on the long road , in the great subjects. This is because he shares the common delusion that Hell and Heaven are far away. They are here or nowhere, as Dante’s unremitting relevance might prove. But we do not think they are. And in a sense we are right. We have lost the theology which placed them for us.
It may take thousands of years to discover such a theology, to cut escape doors out of the waste land which can take us into worlds whose footing is solid. Meanwhile what shall poets do? A poet cannot make a theology. Blake tried and is incomprehensible, Hardy tried but only gave names to mist. Poets have to share a theology ; and with many people. What then can the poet do in a world like ours which thinks that time, future time, will bring all things to clarity? Will see the little justice grow into the great justice? Will sanctify the trimmers? Heaven only knows what he can do. He can refuse to be a fool in the infinite ways that foolishness is possible. But that is not enough for heaven. Or, in the long view, for poetry.”
Another teacher of mine suggested we simply read the poets of our civilization as best we can — Homer, Virgil, Dante and Shakespeare and I considered his advice much better than despair. My wife and I were just conversing yesterday about what a waste of time it is to try and read the modern writers of the 21st century. She is more charitable than I am so reads them for a book club I refuse to attend. But I like Sir Walter Scott and J. Fennimore Cooper and to be left alone more than she does, as I interact with the public enough during my working hours.
But what is “racism” (“a perfectly useless word”, as Sam Francis demonstrated some time ago)? Let us not trifle by playing the Left’s games, on the Left’s terms. Race is a reality, which describes both biological and social fact. I understand that there are various white nationalist types who obsess over race as though it were the only issue, just as there are neo-Nazis who continue to think the Jews are at the bottom of every modern evil, and laissez-fairists who think free markets are the answer to every problem, and “the non-aggression axiom” the epitome of philosophical ethics. I would like to think that what I write is more sophisticated than that.
It is the case, however, that race is, at the very least, arguably the major political and social issue facing the West (many leftists would agree, though their diagnoses and prescriptions are the opposite of mine); that the post-emancipatory Jewish “culture of critique” has dramatically lowered Western civilizational self-confidence (and that Jews have been and continue to be hugely disproportionately involved in political and cultural activities which undermine the genetic [survival] interests of whites as a group); that free markets are demonstrably superior to any other system of economic arrangement if seeking to maximize national [material] prosperity; and that, ceteris paribus, it’s wrong to initiate aggression against unoffending others.
So Dr. Fleming’s undoubtedly sincere (if rather ad hominem) observations of various physically or morally unattractive racists are irrelevant to the main issue, which is that the white race’s current “pathological altruism” has set us on a path to racial extinction, or, at the very least, total irrelevance as a continuing historical force. Perhaps the whites of the future will be akin to Australia’s aboriginal peoples, eking out nasty, brutish and poor existences in the hinterlands of Europe or the wilds of North America, but with no true control over their lives – and thus no real liberty, as either the Founders or Dr. Fleming’s beloved Attic Greeks understood it. Dr. Fleming may be indifferent or resolved to this ultimate fate of the race, but growing numbers of whites are not (though when the Vatican treasures are bulldozed and buried in the name of jihad, I suspect he will feel their loss).
A final point. The vast majority of race realists (ie, persons who are merely honest wrt racial differentiation) and white racialists (ie, those who care about the preservation of the race) I have known have been (I have never known an actual racist fitting Dr. Fleming’s description above, though from reading internet comments I know such do exist), contra Dr. Fleming’s experience, persons of quite exceptional characters and abilities. As even the repulsive, but not completely dishonest liberal Michael Kinsley noted a couple of decades ago, it is very easy to “oppose [white] racism” today. It takes great strength and moral character, however, to stand up for racial truth and white racial justice in these indoctrinated times. Those who do so, whether at CHRONICLES [Sam Francis, Roger McGrath, Srdja Trifkovic, Chilton Williamson come to mind for having written about race in a manner that the Left would call “racist”] or AMERICAN RENAISSANCE or THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY or vdare.com or takimag.com or other places, should be praised, not lumped together with skinheads or the morally confused souls floating in the cesspools of neo-Nazism.
Robert, your comment is interesting but, at the risk of mean-spiritedness, I cannot fathom its relevance to the post or ensuing discussion, and am thus at a loss how to respond.
I first met Sam Francis about 1970, when we were both in graduate school. He worked with us in creating The Southern Partisan, and when I went to Chronicles, I almost immediately brought him on board, and he remained Washington editor until his death. We met frequently, he stayed in my house, we corresponded regularly and, when anything was brewing, we talked on the telephone almost daily. We did not agree on everything, of course, but neither of us pulled any punches in discussion. I say all this to explain to new readers that I do not need instruction on the thought of Dr Francis.
Mr Heller’s response to Robert neatly illustrates my point. This discussion should be directed toward Misa Djurkovic’s interview on the Serbian/East European experiences and understanding of the current immigration crisis. Race is at best tangential, and really a distraction.
It is not an ad hominem argument to point out that victims of ideology, whether Nazis, Communists, Transsexualists, or Racists, display certain characteristics that give us an insight into the ideology. People who are making the most of their brief lives do not, with some exceptions of course, make the mistake of treating theories as a religion or preach social credit or the brotherhood of,man from every street corner.
Robert was giving a gentle nudge back toward things that count more than race. As I have tried to explain to my racist friends, ranting about inferiors is a waste of time that could be better spent studying the best things in our own civilization. If you have not learned Greek, for,example, why waste time on racial theory?
Do not worry about mean spirits when addressing me. I have moved and worked and made my living the last thirty years dealing with them. Although I must say there are some more vicious than others, your words would probably not qualify by comparison. Sorry for the obscurity. I agreed with your assertion that we have lost our theology based upon the post-Christian reduction of spirit to mind; mind to brain, and brain to biological/chemical structures which we believe in but do not fully understand. I disagreed with your suggestion we ( you) should create a new theology based upon the renewal of the old Luctretion attempt towards more more formidable love potions and mood altering pharmaceuticals based on genetics—- and for too many reasons to list here on a friendly blog.