By:Chronicles | February 12, 2016
On February 9 Sweden’s right-leaning newspaper Nya Tider (“New Times”) published an interview with Srdja Trifkovic which focused on the deepening crisis within the European Union and the ongoing migrant invasion of Europe. Here is the English translation.
NT: How do you assess the problems of Europe and the impact of the migrant crisis, terrorism, and the strained relationship with Russia?
ST: The European Union has been in the state of semi-permanent crisis for a long time. That crisis is partly due to the impossibility of harmoniously maintaining the eurozone, in view of various structural differences of national economies in different parts of Europe. On the one hand we have “Fortress Euro,” consisting of Germany, Benelux and Austria; on the other the Mediterranean: the Iberian peninsula, Italy and Greece. These “Club Med” countries do not have the ability to adjust their exchange rates (devalue their currencies) or to raise their interest rates, which means that they are locked into a permanent state of almost colonial dependence. They cannot exploit their comparative advantages, since they have low labor productivity compared with the core nations of the north. It is only one aspect of the crisis. Another aspect is institutional. We have pro-federalists, particularly in Germany and France, who are striving for an ever higher degree of integration and who advocate a new institutional framework to effectively create a superstate. On the other hand we have countries extremely skeptical of such approach, primarily the UK and to a lesser extent some countries in southern Europe.
Last but not least, we see an ever-growing transformation of the European Union from a pragmatic project initially based on open borders and a free flow of people, goods and capital, to a mechanism for political and ideological indoctrination based on cultural Marxism. The EU ruling elite, especially in the Western European core, is actively and zealously—one could say fanatically—promoting an agenda of gay rights, multiculturalism, and neo-Marxist replacement of the “proletariat” by colored migrants. “Capitalists” in this strange model are white, male heterosexuals. This also creates a crisis, because especially in the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe people do not subscribe to this world outlook. They do not want to allow the imposition of an ideology that seeks to destroy Christian faith, family, marriage, and traditional forms of social organization.
These are the three areas of what I would call Europe’s smoldering crisis, now compounded by the migrant wave and the uncertain relationship with Russia. On both fronts, the EU has failed miserably. As for the Ukrainian crisis, the EU has proved unable to formulate a common position different from the Diktat from across the Atlantic. Another problem is that some of Eastern Europe’s EU countries are ardent supporters of the U.S. line and take an intensely hostile Russian line in foreign policy. At the same time Germany in particular, but other countries too, have been forced to pursue policies which are not in their national interest, especially in the economic field.
As for the migrant crisis, we are witnessing a progressive collapse of Europe’s will and urge for self-preservation, a collapse of spectacular proportions. Think of Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West; what we are witnessing is unparalleled in history. In all ages, societies have sought to protect themselves from intruders—and especially those who are culturally and religiously alien; but the European elite is charting a new course. Its failure to prevent this migratory process from reaching absurd proportions demonstrates its moral and civilizational decrepitude. Its members’ mindset is extremely dangerous. They seek to dictate and enforce their model of self-hate on millions of EU member-countries’ common people, and to prevent any attempt to defend and protect their patrimony: their nations, land, history, collective memories and assets. Any attempt to articulate defense is immediately branded as xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia and so on. So, absurdly, in Europe’s elite we find people who have given up all pretense of preserving their identity and culture, but who are at the same time forcing others to adopt their suicidal model.
NT: What is behind the migrant crisis? Is it orchestrated by someone?
ST: It has been suggested that the United States has manipulated this crisis in order to weaken Europe, but I don’t think this is the case. In my opinion the migrant wave is the result of a joint venture between Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Most of these so-called refugees are not refugees at all. A refugee is someone who goes from the war-torn country to the first safe country. Many of these migrants had spent a year or two in Turkey or Lebanon in refugee camps. When they go from there to Europe, and pass four or five safe countries, they obviously migrants. In addition it is worth noting that Saudi Arabia and the super-rich Gulf states, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait, do not admit Syrian refugees. At the same time, these countries have contributed huge sums of money to various Islamic charities that fund this mass migration through Turkey, while the Turkish government has taken care of the logistics. Let us not forget that from Adana or Incirlik, in southeastern Turkey, they have to make a 700-mile journey across Turkey to reach departure ports in Smyrna, Bodrum and Çesme. Were it not for the government of President Erdogan providing organized transport for these people and facilitating their departure to the Greek islands, directly and systematically, the whole exercise simply would not be possible.
It is idle to pretend that this migrant wave does not have a strong Islamic flavor; it does, and this is why Saudi Arabia and Turkey are so interested in facilitating it. Both are Islamic states, even though Turkey still nominally still has a secular constitution inherited from Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. It is clear that Erdogan is an avid political Islamists who has done his utmost to change the nature of Turkey’s society. At the same time is very keen to facilitate and accelerate the Islamic-based demographic transformation of Europe. Here in the Old Continent we already have a huge Muslim diaspora, estimated at 25 million people or more, who obviously do not integrate into their host communities. It is worth noting that they behave in the same way everywhere, no matter what their origin. Turks in Germany, Algerians in France, Moroccans in Holland, Pakistanis in England, they all act identically. They create their own ghettos, where the local, indigenous population is no longer welcome and where the police are reluctant to go. There are over 700 such “sensitive urban zones” in France alone. This process, if unchecked, will replace all native European populations by the end of this century, through the combination of European demographic collapse and mass immigration. This process is being rapidly accelerated as we speak.
It is worth looking at the composition of the migrant wave. Most of them are young healthy males, between 18 and 35, well dressed and fed. Their iPhones have GPS coordinates of the meeting points en route and their final destination. They behave very differently from traditional refugees. They are arrogant and tend to become violent if they do not get what they want. I have a friend who has spent many years working for the Dutch immigration service processing asylum applications. He says that the mindset of these migrants is vastly different from that of genuine refugees, who are often traumatized and mostly travel as families. They apply for help and benefits in the host communities, rather than demand them, and are grateful when they get them. These angry young men come with the attitude that they should grab what belongs to them by right, that they are coming to a country which is obliged to provide them with housing, social welfare and other benefits. This is extremely alarming: if the first thing they do is to expect largesse as a birthright, and later become dependent on benefits, such attitude is unlikely to change later. For example, over 90 percent of refugees from Somalia who came to Sweden in the 1990s are still unemployed and have never worked. This welfare dependency of the Muslim diaspora in Europe has the character of a self-sustaining phenomenon that spans generations.
NT: Does this mean that a “soft conquest” of Europe is in progress?
ST: This is in fact the third conquest of Europe. The first occurred in the early 700’s, when the Arabs crossed the Straits of Gibraltar and continued across the Iberian Peninsula until they were stopped by Charles Martel in 732 at Poitiers. The second conquest came with the Turks, and went across the Balkans. This third conquest has a number of differences. The most important is that Europe has lost its ability to articulate what is its own, and only its own. It is unable to defend itself against the newcomers, who have at their disposal an extensive network of Islamic centers and mosques, and the existing resident diaspora. They can also manipulate their host countries’ public opinion by claiming that they are suffering refugees fleeing oppression and just want to start a new life. In the next five or ten years we’ll see how “user-friendly” these masses are, composed predominantly of young Sunni Muslim men. It is only a matter of time before they start bringing their many wives and countless children.
NT: Is there a connection between these refugees and some recent terrorist attacks, or were they, as some claim, “false flag operations”?
ST: I would not exclude the possibility of false flag operations, because I do not believe that the strategists of this ongoing Muslim conquest want to create negative reactions at this sensitive stage. Staging spectacular terrorist acts is for them counterproductive—especially since it can backfire on the continuing influx into the EU, or impact some individual countries’ policies. They are bloodthirsty and evil, but they are not stupid. From the Islamic State’s point of view, the optimal strategy is to avoid such acts for as long as the migrant deluge continues. They would like to enable as many IS veterans from Syria and Iraq as possible to infiltrate the migrant wave and sneak into Europe to create sleeper cells. It is enough to have three or four percent active IS supporters in the migrant wave. Among a million people, this would translate into at least 25,000 to 30,000 IS assets, embedded in Stuttgart, Rotterdam, Birmingham, or anywhere else.