Tom Sunic | The following is a translation of my speech delivered in the German language ( Die Zukunft der Völker Europa) at the NPD Summer Academy in Saarbrucken, Germany (August 23–26, 2012). The meeting and the lectures were also attended by several representatives of the Front National from the nearby Alsace, France. My original speech in the German language can be downloaded here.
First off, thanks to the NPD for the invitation. I would also like to extend my greetings from my colleagues from our American Third Position Party. The ethnic and demographic situation in Europe today looks completely different from 40 years ago. Therefore, it is appropriate to reevaluate differently terms such as ‘nation’, ‘state’ and ‘national consciousness’. My main thesis is that the future of the European peoples, or rather their chances of survival, lie in the rejection of petty nationalism, in the rejection of all forms of interethnic resentments, as well as in the revival of the idea of the Reich.
I must point out that some unpredictable historical deviations occurred during the period of the last decade of the previous century. In the early nineties of the last century communism collapsed in Eastern Europe because its ideas had already been better put into practice in the West — albeit under a different name. Many paleo-communist ideas, such as egalitarianism, the intellectual Gleichschaltung, as well as the belief in permanent economic progress in a putative multicultural system — all those ideas the early Bolsheviks and latter-day Marxist intellectuals had dreamed about — were better realized in the capitalist West. For that reason alone, it was to be expected that former Marxist intellectuals and politicians in Germany or the EU could easily convert to liberalism and the ideology of the free market.
A second historical deviation allows us now in hindsight to welcome some parts of the communist legacy. In Eastern Europe there are almost no non-European immigrants. Thanks to modest living conditions under communism, Eastern Europe had never exerted attraction on Third World immigrants, although the communist system had always longed for and also worked toward a multi-cultural system, and in addition, rejected any form of nationalism. However, Third World immigrants were not naïve, as they knew that they could have a better life in former colonial countries and former so-called fascist countries of the West. Life in Frankfurt on the Main was more enjoyable than life in Frankfurt on the Oder.
A third historical paradox needs to be mentioned here. Those of you, those of us who lived for a period of time in Third World countries know well what racial discrimination and social and cultural exclusions against the Other means. A mestizo in Mexico, or a Turk from eastern Turkey residing in Istanbul, knows very well which racial and cultural circle he belongs to in his homeland. A destitute Turk with Asian features has no place in the higher echelons of White upper-class Turkey, whose denizens are, as a rule, very proud of their European, i.e. White Albanian and Bosnian origins. A Mexican illegal immigrant, in his now newly discovered America, knows his rights by heart — rights he can only dream about in his native Mexico. Otherwise he would not have come to the so-called racist America in the first place. Now, residing in America, he can bet on legal support from left-wing intellectual circles. Germany and America offer immigrants from all parts of the Third World social opportunities that are usually foreclosed to them in their native countries.
Let’s make a first quick summary: The course of history is always open. We should be careful with predictions about apocalyptic end times awaiting the European peoples. History is not pre-programmed and there are no last stops on the horizon. The lapse of historical time knows no boundaries and can easily destroy all walls of time — if I can use the title of a book by the German writer Ernst Jünger. Our present liberal wall of time may collapse any minute. Therefore, it is wrong to invoke horror scenarios and complain about the imminent extinction of the European peoples.
East and West Europe: What moves their peoples?
We have to make a clear distinction between the self-perceptions among Eastern European and Western European peoples respectively. What moves Western European and Eastern European peoples today? Which are their dominant myths? Thirty or forty years ago, the main topic among West European nationalists was not non-European immigration, but rather the subject of communism and how to defend themselves against the communist threat. The national question of various European nations, apart from low key riots in South Tyrol, Northern Ireland, or the Basque country, was not on the agenda. The perceived enemy of all West European nationalists, including their political establishments, was not the issue of non-European immigrants, but the issue of the communist commissar. Today the communist commissar is no longer an issue for Western European nationalists because the overriding issues is that all West European peoples, without exception, are exposed to a massive inflow of non-European immigrants. In retrospect, and in light of today’s endless waves of non-European immigration, the question arises as to whether communism, after all, was really such a life threatening danger for the European peoples? Maybe under communism all Western European peoples would have secured their identity far better than under capitalism?
After all this was the case in Eastern Europe. National consciousness in Eastern Europe is today much more pronounced than in West European countries. This may be partly due to the erstwhile violent repression of their nationalist sentiments by the communist system which, as a rule, the ruling communist party always dubbed “the fascist danger.”
Fear of the endless influx of non-European immigrants and the real or alleged subversion of their core nationhood now prompts many European nationalists to redefine notions such as “people,” “national consciousness,” or “national spirit.” Back then it was common for all West European nationalists to define their national identity by vilifying nationalists from their neighboring European countries. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Much more important today for all Western European nationalists and their representatives is the survival of their common bio-cultural uniqueness. Again we must point to another historical paradox here; namely, the larger the number of non-Europeans flocking to Europe, the less the chance of conflicts between once warring neighboring West European peoples. It is hardly possible to imagine the Flemings starting a war with the neighboring Walloons, or the Austrian government inciting the South Tyroleans into the secession from Italy.
By contrast, feelings of historical guilt or self-hatred, which can be daily observed in Western Europe and particularly in Germany, are unknown among East European peoples. National pride is still relatively strong and it determines to a large extent the national consciousness of all its citizens and all its politicians. The common folk in Croatia and Hungary, for instance, need not read academic papers on the dangers of multiculturalism, nor do they need to discuss the meaning of their nation’s soul. Most of them know that they are White, European, and good Christians.
Despite many advantages in terms of their ethnic homogeneity, the situation between Eastern European peoples is not good. All Eastern European peoples show a high degree of “negative” or “reactive national consciousness,” which always excludes the neighboring European Other. One should not underestimate interethnic and inter-European hatred among East European peoples as a source of new conflicts in the region. Although they have been spared so far the massive immigration of non-Europeans, internal interethnic resentments among East Europeans still run high.
Here are some examples of such “reactive” or “negative national consciousness” among the peoples of Eastern Europe, which are often difficult to grasp by nationalists in France or in distant America. Thus, the national consciousness of a Polish nationalist, who may otherwise agree on all issues with his colleague from Germany, such as their common criticism of globalism, anticommunism and anti-capitalism, is often rooted in his strong anti-German feelings. Furthermore, one third of ethnic Hungarians — more than 2 million people — live under the foreign jurisdiction of Slovakia, Serbia and Romania, and their national consciousness is often based on a close relationship with their kinsmen in Hungary. Despite an apparent peace treaty between Serbia and Croatia, their perceptions of each other, as well as their self-perceptions, are mutually irreconcilable. These two peoples share two completely different views of contemporary history, and display two mutually hostile victimhoods. In short, Serbs and Croats, despite their astonishing racial similarity, display two radically and mutually exclusive national consciousnesses. Often, for a Croat nationalist it is hard to define himself as “a good Croat” unless he first describes himself as a “good anti-Serb.”
Who is to be blamed for such fatal and mutually hostile self-perceptions that are still alive among and between peoples of Eastern Europe? Modern historiography and modern court historians, as well as modern mediacricy share a large dose of responsibility for these negative perceptions of each other. Although East European peoples rid themselves of communism, the overall interpretation of their respective contemporary histories has not changed much since 1945. National myths and mutually negative and exclusive perceptions of each other are largely based on flawed historical memories dating back to the Second World War. Here is a glaring example:
The root causes of the break-up of the former communist Yugoslavia and the ensuing war in 1991 are to be traced to Yugoslav communist historiography, which had held out for decades the figure of 600,000 Serbs, Jews and Communists allegedly killed during World War II by the so called Nazi Croats. At the time of communist Yugoslavia, the verbiage of anti-fascism and the so-called Nazi-Croats were the two main symbols of paramount evil, but also symbols that constituted the two negative founding myths of communist Yugoslavia, i.e. the two “civil religions” that kept the communist state of Yugoslavia alive. In 1991, a historian and the future head of state, Franjo Tudjman came into revisionist limelight. In his earlier works of the late eighties, Tudjman had significantly reduced the number of Serbs, Jews and Communists killed in the Croatian Nazi-Ustashi camps — from 600,000 down to 60,000. The consequences of this new historical narrative in a new-born Croatia were soon to be known worldwide. The ethnic Serb minority in a crumbling Yugoslavia and a new-born Croatia went literally into panic attacks in the face of what they believed was as a resurgence of fascist Croatia. And then all hell broke loose.
One might draw a parallel with Germany. Supposedly the impact of the so-called Beneš decrees and the expulsion of 3.5 million Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia in 1945 were to be critically addressed by the European Commission in Brussels. One can guess that this would likely lead to serious tensions not just between Germany and the Czech Republic, but would also cause serious troubles all over Europe. In short, flawed, exaggerated, surreal, deceitful, or romantic historical narratives, especially those tinkering with WWII body counts, are the main culprits of the lingering mutual fear and interethnic hatred among East and Central European peoples.
A Forthcoming War in Europe
A likely war in Europe is not going to have clear cut demarcation lines between “good White Europeans” vs. “evil dark-colored non-Europeans,” as many nationalists in Europe and the USA often anticipate. The pending war will demonstrate nasty features of combined class struggles, racial struggles and messy interethnic struggles within, between and amidst Europeans themselves. And yet, the aforementioned distorted and politically biased historical narratives must not be an excuse for Europe’s age-old small time nationalisms. Petty nationalism, whether of the German, Croatian, American, English, or French extraction, has inflicted immense damage to all European peoples. Only in retrospect can wee see the disastrous legacy of the nation-state which has bequeathed upon us, in the span of the last two hundred years, murderous religious wars, ongoing territorial disputes, and false historical memories. Last, but not least, we must all raise an embarrassing question: What does it mean today to exclaim “I am proud of being a German, a Fleming, a French, or an American,” considering that more than 10 percent of Germany’s citizens, 15 percent of France’s citizens and 30 percent of the U.S. population are of non-European descent?
Our main concern here should not be whether, or how much, or to what extent non-European immigrants residing in Germany, or in the EU can, or must be integrated. The fallacy and the danger of the multicultural system have already been well covered. Our prime goal is the reintegration of countless Germans back to their explicit Germanness; of countless Europeans back to their explicit European national awareness. Millions of Germans, or Croats, or Americans, or French, who vegetate as passing consumers, or as “Whites by default,” unaware of their own history and their own destiny, are far more of a problem than the further influx of millions more immigrants from the Third World.
”To be a German is not only he who speaks German, or he who comes from Germany, or he who possesses German citizenship. The state and the language are natural foundations of a nation, although a nation acquires its historical characteristics only from the art how it determines the life of the people of the same blood in its spirit. To live with the awareness of one’ nation means living within the awareness of its values. “(A. Moeller van den Bruck [1876 – 1925])
We often confuse the causes of non-European immigration with its effects. We hunt after a wrong scapegoat. Let us try to clarify it. Non-European immigrants are often depicted with the across the board noun “Muslims,” or “Islamists”—as if there are only Muslim immigrants coming to Europe. The notion of the religion should not be equated with the notion of the people. In the Balkans, for instance there are well over 10 million Muslims of European stock, yet many of them are very White people with Nordic features. Should we kick these peoples out of Europe? On the other hand, even if the present four million German Turks were to convert to Christianity that would not make the slightest difference to me. Our sense of nationhood and my sense of being part of an historic people depends not only on my, or on our religious affiliations, but are also grounded in our peculiar sense of the tragic, our unique sense of history— and of course, in our distinct biology. In America there are 50 million mestizo Latinos who are very Catholic and who believe in Jesus Christ. But these peoples are not part of our people or our culture and neither do I expect from them any empathy for my kind, or my kinsmen and my destiny.
There is also a conceptual error some of our colleagues make. Anti-Islamism, similar to the ideology of anti-fascism, is today a relatively risk-free and legally acceptable intellectual adventure. Of course, this adventure is frequently fueled by elites in the government and in the media, as well as by neo-conservatives, especially in the United States. Incidentally, anti-Islamism can also serve as a handy cover for disguising one’s own hatred of the multicultural system. Since it can be legally and professionally harmful to lambast non-White immigrants, let alone criticize out in the open European and American Jewry (e.g., for the support of multiculturalism), many Europeans and American nationalists hide their criticism of the multicultural system behind their criticism of Islam. Some prominent European nationalist figures recently went a step further: they began using strong anti-Islamic rhetoric, mixed with mandatory atonement trips to Israel—in a naive belief that they could henceforth better barter off a free ride for their criticism of multiculturalism.
Capitalism: The main enemy of the peoples of Europe
The blame for non-European immigration and the decomposition of the European peoples must not be solely borne by the immigrants. It is in the interest of the local capitalists to get a million-strong reserve army of cheap labor to Europe and to the U.S.; in turn, they can lower the wages of their domestic workers. Furthermore, non-European immigrants have little social consciousness, a weak sense of the trade union adherence and practically no sense for the European destiny. Therefore, they can be better manipulated by the local capitalists. One should consider therefore the globalists, the plutocrats and the financial “superclass” as the main enemy of the European peoples. A German stockbroker, or a Croatian or a Russian ex-communist speculator turned now into a capitalist shark, does not care where his nation is—as long as he can rake in big money.
We are all witnessing a reemergence of the silent holy alliance today—an alliance between the ex-Commissar and the Merchant, i.e. the marriage between the left-winger and big business. The European Left is in favor of mass immigration, given that the exotic picture of the non-European immigrant represents for it now the ersatz symbol of its long gone proletariat. For the capitalist, it is beneficial to bring people from the Third World into Europe, because they can best serve the interests of anonymous capital. The capitalist strives towards the removal of his people, because his people are too expensive for his business transactions. A leftist “antifa” wants to erase his people because it will always remind him of the rising “fascist beast.”
But the Church also bears a heavy responsibility for the decomposing situation of the European nations, especially with its ecumenical parlance of “help thy neighbor.” Americans, Europeans and White Christians are nowadays more concerned about the welfare of non-European peoples than the welfare of their own. A rich Qatari, or an oil sheik from Saudi Arabia could not care less are about the young unemployed and destitute masses in Moldova, or the working poor in France of Spain. He does not feel much inclined to help his own kind in Palestine in the first place, let alone give a thought to the suffering of the millions of the unemployed in Europe. The influential American Cardinal, Timothy Dolan, also known “as the American Pope” openly preaches in the American media the necessity of the open borders and openly advocates the protection of illegal immigrants in the USA. Therefore it is wrong to blame only stateless plutocrats, ethnic lobbies, or starry eyed leftists in their decomposition endeavors of the European peoples. Regarding the destructive equality doctrine by Christian savants, I’ will not discuss it here. I’ll refer you to my papers and books.
Conclusion: The End of the System
The mission of the nation-state in Europe has ended in serial disasters. The idea of a European Reich must be revived. It is not important how the idea of the Reich should manifest itself in the future and what statutory or legal forms it may assume. It can carry the name of the European confederation, or for that matter it can retain the name of the European Union. What counts though is not the form but the content of the new imperial (Reich) idea. The imperial idea excludes rabid nationalism and offers all European peoples a chance to hold on to their uniqueness, yet also meet their common duties. The Germanic Reich idea has nothing in common with the English “Empire,” or the French “Empire”. It should never be confused with those English or the French words respectively. (See Alain de Benoist’s “The Idea of Empire.”)
Centralism had always played a significant role in the development of the French imperial idea—which later gave birth to modern xenophobic nation-states and even worse, midwifed recently the strange centralistic structure, known as the EU. This was never the case with the idea of the Reich, in which supra-national and federal undercurrents had for centuries been the guiding principle of the ruling elites. The Reich means European ethnic plurality within a strong political unity. However, the imperial idea for the European peoples requires a new hierarchy of values, values which lie in sharp contrast to today’s liberal values. In today’s egalitarian, economistic system, where the rule of money is the only religion and where the sameness of all individuals and cultures runs full course, the idea of the empire is an oxymoron.
Yet the imperial Reich idea is also a logical response to a political threat. One thousand years ago, the idea of the empire was the only answer to the threat of the Huns, the Mongols and Turks. Back then in the 17th century had it not been for the European Prince Eugene of Savoy, had it not been for the idea of the empire, Dr. Sunic would be delivering a different sermon today and maybe his name would be Alia or Mohamed.
What’s the point in living in a so-called independent Croatia, or Lithuania or in Germany if all Western states, without any exceptions, have no more sovereignty left, all being instead ruled by the American proconsuls, Euro-commissioners and anonymous banksters?
The good news, however, is that the system has been dead for quite some time. The experiments with abstract dogmas of multiculturalism, the belief in the economic progress amidst ethnically rootless people have failed. Events in both Europe and the U.S. show us daily that the liberal experiment is history. There is sufficient empirical evidence to prove that. It is a typical feature of the dying system to resort to pathetic words about “its infallibility,” “its eternity,” and to pontificate about “its truthfulness”—precisely at the moment when the system is falling apart. Such complacent wishful thinking we have experienced countless times in Western history. The bogus self-conception of today’s ruling class in the EU about the “end of history” reminds me of the mindset of the political class in former Communist East Germany and the former communist Yugoslavia—just before their collapse. In the summer of 1989, there were still big marches in the GDR with all local communist bigwigs raving about the “indestructibility of communism.” A few months later, the Berlin Wall fell down—and the communist system was dead. Today’s ruling class in the West, or in the EU, is very weak, and it well aware of it, but cannot admit it openly. It does not know where it is headed. What should be of interest for all of us is the coming state of emergency and who will be the person to declare it. Once the state of emergency begins, our present political discourse will assume a different meaning. Then the plow may again turn into the sword. Thanks for you attention.[Dr. Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.com) is a writer and the Board member of the American Third Position Party)]