About the Author

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.

See All Posts by This Author

It’s 2028, and All Is Well: The Diary of an Aging Counterrevolutionary

by Srdja Trifkovic

[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].

Thursday, June 1—My final American Interest was published today in Chronicles. In the aftermath of the Second Revolution, the column has outlived its purpose. Pontificating on the evils of one-worldism, empire, global hegemony, propositional nationhood, jihadist infiltration, foreign interventionism, and “nation-building” was a necessary and often frustrating task, back in the awful days of George W. Bush and his four immediate successors. It is not so anymore.

I had continued writing it in the aftermath of the Spring of ’24, increasingly in the tone of friendly advice rather than acidic warning. Being mild in tenor and approving in sentiment is not conducive to interesting ideas, however, and it is gratifying to admit that neither advice nor warning from us old-timers is much needed in today’s “foreign-policy community” in Washington. Its dwindling crew is composed of solidly educated civil servants rather than ideologues or foreign agents, and the ship of state is in capable and trustworthy hands for the first time since Calvin Coolidge, a century ago.

Another reason it is time to bid farewell to the American Interest is editorial. With the print run nearing half a million, it is time for Chronicles to refocus on “American culture” in the proper sense of die Kultur, the sum of the life of a community and its mores. I hope the Young Turks in the Fleming Tower will see that necessity and act accordingly, but I am not certain of their ability to resist the temptation of establishmentarianism. They are human and therefore subject to Lord Acton’s dictum. All those Veuve Clicquot empties in the bins of top-floor offices are not a good sign.

Friday, June 2—Flew to Boston for the third Samuel Francis Memorial Lecture at Harvard.

Our youthful Director of Homeland Security chose an apt title, “The Lonely Prophet,” for his address. It was all rather grand, but Sam would have deemed the speaker’s adulatory tone worthy of a barbed quip. The focus was on the supposed harmony between some of Sam’s ideas and the vision behind this administration’s security policies, such as the completion of the “Friendship Fence” along the southern border, the “phased” repatriation of illegal immigrants (as well as Islamic activists regardless of status), the “permanent moratorium” on immigration from “culturally unaffiliated countries or communities,” and the “active discouragement of deviants” from joining the military and security services. The speaker concluded by saying that “Dr. Francis and his fellow turn-of-the-millennium patriots clearly did not expect that America would return to a properly limited federal government in their lifetime,” but they nevertheless provided the ideas that nurtured the Second Revolution:

Thanks to such great Americans as Sam Francis, this country’s public servants no longer seek to reconfigure the United States in accordance with the multiculturalist ideology, but consciously strive for the neutrality of the state apparatus within the patriotic paradigm while defending this country’s core national, state, and security interests, and doing so resolutely and humanely.

Last year’s lecture by the Vice President, “The Movement That Moved,” had a different tenor, with its impassioned plea for the return to the legacy of our forebears and the culture they created. The new regime is increasingly self-confident, however, and I am certain Sam would approve of its policies while remaining skeptical of its rhetoric.

Saturday, June 3—Started the day with a long espresso and an excellent NPR commentary, by a soft-spoken cleric with a Slavic name, on the evils of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Treating the French Revolution as a major catastrophe in the history of mankind is long overdue. The good father concludes by saying that “knowing the past enables us to discern meaning in the present and trust God with our future.” It does indeed, but such reminders are becoming a tad too frequent on this reformed institution’s airwaves. I suspect that some of its pre-2024 editors still on the payroll are trying a little too hard to prove their ideological bona fides under the new regime.

Lunched with a journalist just back from Paris. It seems that the evacuation of Muslims from France did not go quite as smoothly as reported. In some areas—Toulon and Marseilles, in particular—it was an ugly business, and some details are not for the faint of heart. The underlying pattern is clear, however: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened, they do not just react—they overreact with stunning ferocity. In retrospect, he says, we can look upon 2008, with the anti-hijab legislation and the release of Geert Wilders’ film Fitna, as the beginning of Europe’s recovery. He nevertheless concedes that nativist movements would not have prevailed were it not for the financial meltdown of 2023-24 that made the Second Revolution possible here at home.

It is also noteworthy, he says, that most of the ruling parties in Europe—the BNP, Vlaams Belang, Front National, the Freedom Party—are resolutely dismantling the social and political framework of the European Union, while preserving its “functional core.” This trend is reflected in the British proposal to revive the name of the European Economic Community. Of course, the monster needs to be destroyed, not reformed. Agreements on free trade, customs, etc., are useful, and they can be bilateral or multi-lateral, but the Leviathan in Brussels should never be allowed to raise its ugly head again.

Sunday, June 4—The morning chat shows are still focused on the historic importance of the Russo-Chinese lightning occupation of Mecca and Medina. The televised demolition of the Kaaba, along with the bird’s-eye view of the Black Stone being pounded to a powder and cast into the Red Sea, has had a tonic effect worldwide. The joint announcement by Presidents Belov and Chang that the cult of “Submission” was thereby abolished yielded surprisingly little violent response from its stunned devotees.

Long predicated on the idea that the sine qua non of Islam was Allah’s victory in this world, not in that to come, the definitive demonstration to the contrary was more convincing than anyone would have thought. There is no mystery, however: The problem of the Muslim world has never been one of inadequate natural resources or dysfunctional political systems. Ernest Renan, who started his study of Islam by praising its ability to manifest “what was divine in human nature,” ended it by concluding that “Muslims are the first victims of Islam” and that, therefore, “to liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.” That such service is being rendered by the Russians is OK with me, so long as it is being done.

In the short interval since the delivery of the coup de grâce in Saudi Arabia, evangelistic websites and organizations working in the Arab, Turkish, Urdu, Farsi, and other Middle Eastern and Central Asian languages have been inundated with inquiries by former Muslims desperate to learn about Isa al-Masih. This is great and glorious news. The task of helping our fellow men who had been trapped in Islam can now proceed hand-in-hand with helping our fellow Christians, here at home, to become aware of who they are and to become proud, once again, of their civilizational and spiritual legacy.

Monday, June 5—Pat Buchanan’s latest book, Annihilation Averted, is finally out. He will turn 90 in November, but his prose is as crisp today as it was in State of Emergency two decades ago. His argument is that America could not have been completely de-Americanized between 1965 and 2024, because her long-suffering silent majority had never given up on the vision of itself as a real nation, a distinct people with shared civilizational and religious roots. The Second Revolution was made possible by the fact that, even after decades of indoctrination, most Americans still preferred the notion of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none” to the propositional orthodoxy of the treasonous elite. Their instinctive distrust of the Duopoly’s claim to America’s “exceptionalism” has saved the day. The moral absolutism that the hegemonists substituted for rational argument could be challenged only once the economic collapse was under way, however; and it was challenged, although a lot of blood was shed, and a lot of treasure was squandered in the meantime.

Tuesday, June 6—The fact that the National Endowment for Democracy is still in existence troubles me deeply. According to a long feature in today’s New York Times, the NED is “helping democracy and promoting American values” by supporting, inter alia, China’s anti-abortionists, South Africa’s dwindling Boers, and Christian missionaries all over the Muslim world. Now that America has recovered her sanity, all such experiments in “exporting democracy” should cease, or else be limited to non-taxpayer-funded endeavors. The objective of our government is to maintain the security and freedom of this country and to uphold her traditions and values. It is not to promote them by funding overseas groups and entities, however worthy and vulnerable they may be. Doing so reminds me of the bad old days of a regime of global social work. Old habits seem to die hard, including the desire to remake the world in one’s own image.
America’s national-interest-based foreign policy should refrain from meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. We must never again succumb to George W. Bush’s arrogant belief that “history has called America and our allies to action,” or to Madeleine Albright’s hubristic assertion, “We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.” Such millenarian kitsch is as tasteless as it is dangerous. The notion that “we” are “indispensable” or “on the right side of history” prompted megalomaniacal strategies that were inimical to the political and constitutional tradition of the United States. The notion that “history” is an entity on a linear march is a gnostic myth worthy of jihadists, Nazis, and communists, but not of a democratic republic.

Wednesday, June 7—The news that the Border Patrol is not recruiting new officers for the fist time in years reflects the success of the 2,000-mile, double-line Friendship Fence, a technological marvel that has reduced illegal immigration almost to zero. Had it not been erected, every major U.S. city would have looked like Los Angeles by now—and Los Angeles would look like Mexico City. As it happens, America will not become a Third World country after all. Federal legislation to end all social-welfare benefits for illegal aliens and a crackdown on major businesses that chronically hire illegal aliens have helped resolve the problem, but the long-term solution came only with the 2026 Repatriation Act. It is not the prettiest piece of legislation, but it is certainly among the more useful ones.

Srdja Trifkovic is Chronicles’ foreign-affairs editor.

This article first appeared in the June 2008 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.

[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].



Comments

There Are 11 Responses So Far. »

  1. I’m very partial to Veuve Clicquot myself but I don’t write thing afterwards! This reminds me of one of those futuristic films of the the 1970s in which the US and the Soviet Union still exist but have become good friends.

    Rember how quickly communism disappeared? Anyone who said in 1985 that the Soviet Union and communism would be gone within a few years would have been laughed at. I don’t think the US will still exist in 2028! On the basis of what happened to the Soviet Union, I would give it, maybe, 5 to 10 years.

    POTUS 44, whichever of them it is, will be the American Gorbachev, elected to “fix” the system but who will pull the thread which will unravel the whole thing and bring the house of cards crashing down. As in Russia today, Americans will then have to pick up the pieces and build something new. The Second Revolution is a lot closer than people think!

  2. I’d like to see a united and vibrant American Orthodoxy in the mix.

  3. You mean the “dreams of an aging counterrevolutionary”?

    And just how did the ship of state make a complete 180 turn in your fantasy?

  4. Clearly stated: “nativist movements [in Europe] would not have prevailed were it not for the financial meltdown of 2023-24 that made the Second Revolution possible here at home.”

  5. “to liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.” That such service is being rendered by the Russians is OK with me, so long as it is being done.

    Is that an anti-Russian statement saying Russians are going to kill all its Muslim inhabitants in the future.

    It wasn’t Russians who invaded Dagestan who bombed them out of there houses and ran terrorist training camps/schools in its province.

    If Brezinski’s plan comes to fruition you will have Russia divided into 3 with probably about 10-20 million dead.

  6. When Trifkovic speaks,people say “let’s march”.Have you read Elena Chudinova’s “The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris”? Is it available in English?Some reviews I read remind me a bit of your great above piece but I need the benefit of your thoughts.

  7. Proud to be an American again, in 2028.

    “Then happy I, that loved and am beloved
    Where I may not remove nor be removed.” -W.S.

    I’m just a little baker I reach
    high up on the shelf for my quotes
    All the while hoping all my enemies
    expire as they will stuck in their moats

    Lend a hand please baker lend a hand
    you must, to help us out and about
    and again free here and there -
    no. I don’t why – you’ve had your way
    for so long now to no avail and pain

    it seems a moat is good in which by your
    own hand for you to REMAIN. sorry.

    as I whistle on my way back to my shop
    thinking they had some nerve and what
    CRUST. don’t go back don’t go back says
    the voice don’t be a fool -
    they’ll simply do you again like they did
    before is their golden rule. -pele

  8. First you win in your mind, then you win on the field of battle!

  9. That meltdown is sure to come.

    On another note, the ‘youth’ of the country are not always completely clueless about everything. Even the most worthless seem to understand something about the shape we’re in. I’ve heard comments like ‘this country is already finished’, and, on voting in the current election, ‘I will not participate in the destruction of the country. I will not be partly responsible for it’s downfall’. These two comments came from two grungy, worthless boys, unsolicited, as part of conversations in which I was not involved.

    It seems the left has made a mistake in turning young Americans into nihilists rather than revolutionary radicals, for a nihilist can see facts that radical revolutionary ideologues are blind to. All a nihilist needs for salvation is something to believe in and hope for the future.

  10. Possunt quia posse videntur.

  11. “All a nihilist needs for salvation is something to believe in and hope for the future.” -Allen Wilson

    It’s such a circle. Belief & hope good and normal things in themselves, when untenably grandiose and so only derivative of the truth and thus merely propositional as well, led to nihilism and vice versa or versa vica. You’re right, then *nihilism which is raw, and thus more true in itself than the blinding and only derivative propositions of ideologues’ half-truths, three-quarter truths (I can’t decide which of those two are worse), *EITHER needs something to believe in again *OR to simply face the feeling of nothingness and get passed it to the truth (which is harder to do), than again finding the object of belief. Because the, as it were going of the extra mile if you want to, to the subject-object of oneself and beyond into the fullness of the truth is much more difficult. Sceptics are saying no that’s the higherMalarkey it all begins and ends with nihilism – belief -nihilism – belief … i.e. Nietzsche – Plato – Neitzsche – Plato …

    And then the song: ‘is that all there is my friends, then lets keep dancing…’ yaddah, yaddah. To them I would say theirs is the higher-*malarkey in stopping therein, essentially chasing their own tails.

    As Aristotle & later again Heidegger demonstrated it is the phenomenon of self-showing (in Greek ‘aletheia’) that allows us beings to be objects of assertions in the first place. Or humorously as Woody Allen pointed out as an artist: nine-tenths of life is ’showing up.’ i.e. Aristotle’s disclosedness or *unconcealment that the leading sense of Being is this presence or presencing. (Woody discovered the truth in the West – just put a camera on him, who has shown-up, and he’s funny.) That is the thread (and accurate as well) running throughout all of Western tradition… even for example in the ‘worthless boys’ you cite above. This is the why of why (in my opinion) we’re not only obviously different in our demonstration of logos i.e. doing&word, but since closer to what is true in its fullest or fuller sense, we’re in our way superior to the middle eastern and eastern ways of the judaic, islamic, oriental etc. It’s just my opinion we’re in that regard superior; but culture matters and it is nonetheless obvious that we are in Fact different than them.

    It’s also the why of why when you put other cultures together, since they’re different in both the behaviors and way of behaving or being they encourage or incite, the best culture in so far as being the truest, will not necessarily be the one to survive and so something important then is lost. If you put a man in a cage with a bear then in effect what you are saying is I value the bear more. Since obviously the other will be lost. I don’t know you Mr. Allen and from what I’ve read so far I can’t tell if you’re yet in the Nietzsche – Plato circle – or rather in the Aristotle – Heidegger culicue which goes circular and advances somewhat… goes circular and advances somewhat… etc.

    If in candor you ask yourself in which of the above you more tend to reside or if in either … in candor do you know? Just asking respectfully and I would also like to ask that of Dr. Clyde Wilson.

Close
E-mail It