Conversation with Martin Sellner, Austrian writer, leader of the identity movement
We are talking at a very hard time in terms of freedom of speech in German-speaking countries. We have late discussed the issue of the German monthly "Compact". You were a regular associate of that magazine, weren't you?
Yeah, I wrote him a monthly column. I besides recorded a weekly video broadcast for this magazine. I've known Jürgen Elsässer for many years. I met him virtually a fewer days ago, and we are inactive shocked in Germany by the immediate and complete ban.
Can you say that, in fact, all this scandal and public opinion in Germany about it can in any way aid the "Compact" magazine?
- Absolutely. "Compact" is now seen as the most populist magazine and the most extremist magazine Germany has always heard of. But now virtually all Germans know the name ‘Compact’ and the name Jürgen Elsässer. Of course, what happened was very painful, brutal. I do not know if you know the details – they took everything from his office, entered his wife's flat and took everything from there, including her money. Everything has been taken over by the state. Material harm can be repaired. On the another hand, image harm on the part of the alleged free-liberal Western values, which Nancy Faeser, Minister of the Interior, has done to herself and the alleged government – I think they will never be able to overcome and repair. Even many people who do not like the "Compact" and come from the liberal left-wing spectrum of German politics have besides criticised this. Therefore, I believe that this was an crucial minute to exposure the face of the system. And I hope that the full patriotic opposition will get stronger.
We have late held very serious debates, discussions with the editorial board "Compact" on various hard periods in Polish-German relations. Nevertheless, the "Compact" was very open to any alternate way of reasoning and interpreting the political environment as such. Do you think that this attack, this attack against the "Compact" can be seen as a blow besides directed against the alternate to Germany?
- Yes, absolutely. I think it was undoubtedly a blow against the party, because, as you most likely know, the very crucial key elections to the Landtags in east Germany are coming, and the "Compact" supported the AfD. However, if you look at it on a deeper level, you can besides see that the intended effect of the "Compact" ban is to push AfD in a certain direction. "Compact" played a very crucial function in all the improvement of this party. It was based on maintaining the profile of a national-conservative group, due to the fact that attempts were very frequently made to take over the organization by the Liberals, and the membership base always rebelled against those candidates and leaders behind them. As a result, they left the ranks of the parties. Höcke and national conservative wing prevailed in all these battles, and the "Compact" was their support. Lucke, Petry, Meuthen were the more liberal AfD leaders who tried to turn her into a liberal and conformist group. They were all pushed outside the organization by the associate masses, and the "Compact" played a very crucial function in this. Personally, I believe that the most crucial nonsubjective of those who have banned "Compact" was to weaken this national-conservative wing and the AfD membership base.
That's very interesting. There are respective charismatic leaders, I mean regional leaders in the German lands in the east part of Germany, for example Björn Höcke etc. On the another hand, at AfD, we inactive have a liberal wing, even rather influential. Do you think that the full situation with the "Compact" will someway weaken this current – the extremist patriotic wing of AfD, or will it be the opposite?
– I think it will. This is the main, most disturbing effect for national conservatives in AfD. They lost a very crucial spokesperson who was not afraid to criticize the politicians of the party. To a large extent, criticism of certain aspects and trends in AfD has come from the "Compact". For example, if we look at Maximilian Krah, the national AfD candidate in the European elections, he was very powerfully supported by the "Compact". The full patriotic counterpublicity will be lacking in "Compact", although there are many another media and newspapers and influencers. However, around AfD the deficiency of a monthly will be felt. It could have been the main intent of this ban. Although it's just individual speculation.
You come from Austria, and yet you are seen as the chief ideologist of AfD, at least her patriotic wing. You attended respective organization conferences. After your speeches, this organization was severely and violently attacked, mainly due to your concept of remigration. Could you tell us in a fewer words about its basic assumptions?
Yeah, I'd love to. My book Remigration proposes this term, which has been popularized more widely, especially by the French fresh Right, Zemmour, etc. It has been present in German academic discourse for a long time. We are presently utilizing this word as a general word for a key change, a 180-degree change throughout migration policy. We think we've had besides much migration. The effects of immigration cannot be sustained economically and culturally. Remigration is so a general concept that allows for the return and repatriation of illegal immigrants, the simplification of immigration, and the stopping of the influx of people who are not helping our economical strategy and who are a cultural burden for us. It besides creates incentives for unsimulated people, for communities parallel to returning to their homeland. So this is simply a very broad definition. In my book I am discussing its details and presenting a concept that could save Germany – make Germany German again, Italy Italian again, Austria Austrian again. So I would say this is an avant-garde concept. Yes, it is something more extremist than what we have in the mainstream of politics today. However, I believe that this will surely become a very crucial thought for our policy in the future.
I would like to ask you a fewer details of the full concept. The case is clear erstwhile it comes to persons who are illegal immigrants and do not have the nationality of a given country – Germany, Austria and so on. It's a common subject. I see any similarities between your ideas to Trumpists and any Republicans supporting Trump in the United States. I think they're rather similar.
Yeah, you could say that. But I must besides add that erstwhile it comes to sending illegal immigrants home, our mainstream parties and many right-wing populist parties do not have clear concepts or circumstantial plans either. So what I propose here in item is the creation of alleged leased cities and peculiar economical zones in North Africa to address the problem of people who cannot be sent home due to the fact that their countries do not agree to it, as well as those who have resigned from having their citizenship. To this end, we request to make different solutions. I am in favour of building large settlements, mega cities where people can live in a area where they can get education and where they will have a welfare system. This would halt the continuing influx of illegal immigration into Europe. This is simply a very crucial issue that I besides address in this book. I think we request to be more creative here and think outside the box.
However, this would require a number of arrangements with North African countries. Do you think – is it theoretically possible to find a country there that would be willing to participate in specified a program?
Absolutely. If we rent this area for 100 years and pay them very well, and the construction of cities and infrastructure itself will make many fresh jobs there. And if you look at how much money we donate to improvement aid and what debt they have, then we could reduce these debts, give them quite a few money. At the minute we are building in Germany 1 hotel after another, fresh housing for immigrants, while German families are desperately looking for housing. We're wasting all this money here due to the fact that integration won't work; these people are not needed here and they don't fit into our society. In that area, that money is worth 10 times more. So if we invest all the waste we're wasting right now, we won't have a problem with that. I think it is beneficial, especially for those countries that endure from destabilisation on migration routes where there are gangs of human traffickers and terrorists, specified as Libya. It would be very good for them to make specified safety zones, wealth and stability. After any time, immigrants surviving there could return to their countries of origin, with education, cognition and fresh inspiration. So I think that these peculiar economical zones and leased cities could further become the engine of change and actually make prospects that will prevent further mass immigration.
Speaking of mass immigration as such, I wanted to ask you about the origin of the problem. I am referring to a number of reports and analyses published by various American, Atlantic expert centres, in which Americans openly claim that this is part of the plan to destabilise Europe as such. I mean, all these “Arab Springs”, colorful revolutions in different countries, have destabilised the full region, like Libya. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi was 1 of the reasons for the influx of illegal immigration into Europe. So do you not think that a systemic solution to the full problem would besides require greater stableness of political regimes in North Africa and the mediate East?
I see where you're going with this. And I think you're right about any things. But in general, I would disagree with that claim. Why? I completely agree that mass immigration to Europe is powerfully desirable by anyone who wants to destabilise it, due to the fact that diversity is not a force, but it importantly weakens all country. This is the application of the rule of "share and rule". I think it is comic that erstwhile migrants arrive from Belarus or Turkey, people say: Ah, Putin and Erdogan destabilise Europe with mass immigration. But erstwhile immigrants are already in Austria, Italy or France, they are abruptly considered enriching and are claimed to be positive. Therefore, I full agree with you that migration can become a geopolitical weapon. I besides believe that we should make all effort to guarantee stability, peace and independency in these regions so that people have a position there. But on the another hand, I besides think that the main problem is the policy of the open door of Europe. Hundreds of thousands of migrants would like to go to, for example, Australia or Saudi Arabia, but they do not open borders there. So if we say that we must not close our borders, and the prerequisite for stopping mass migration is to guarantee planet peace and global happiness for all, otherwise we will gotta open our doors to them – that is not the right approach. We are not obliged to accept everyone into our countries. We have complete autonomy about how much and what migration we want. However, we should besides completely halt interventionist policy, halt sowing chaos there, support the forces that sow this chaos. We should work for a just planet where these flows of mass migration would not reappear.
What about people who already have German or Austrian citizenship but have not been inculcated and assimilated in these societies?
I'd like to start by explaining 1 thing, due to the fact that different people lie about it all the time. Remigration does not mean deportation of persons with citizenship. This would be a clear violation of the law and would make complete legal chaos. erstwhile we talk about remigration, we do not mean the introduction of any second-class citizenship, but we request to create, program a set of pushing and attracting factors. We must apply what I call cultural pressure, the soft cultural impact on these parallel societies. Of course, a individual can be taken distant from citizenship if he committed treason or had double citizenship. In fact, we must thoroughly improvement the legal strategy on citizenship. However, people who are not assimilated, who live in parallel societies, who may have extremist political convictions, commit crimes – they do not want or are incapable to assimilate at all. I think that there is simply quite a few economical and cultural force here, and then we request to give them voluntary programs and incentives to go home if they want to. If you look at, for example, the Afghan community present in Germany, this is the largest Afghan community outside Afghanistan itself.
This is completely insane. There is simply a immense Syrian population in Germany, almost 5% of all Syrians live in this country. This is the data that the paper "Junge Freiheit" has late published. I think that if we balance these factors of pushing and attracting, if in the long word there is simply a permanent outflow of unsimulated immigration in our country, due to the fact that this is what remigration policy will be based on for decades - then these parallel societies will shrink. Of course, any may besides assimilate. It's always possible. Many migrants are opposed to mass immigration and are large supporters of migration policy. If force is applied in the long term, ghettos and parallel societies will begin to shrink.
As you most likely know, in Poland and another countries of Central Europe, at least we have not encountered the problem of non-European immigration. Nevertheless, we have respective million, especially in Poland, Ukrainian immigrants. I am not talking about refugees, due to the fact that according to Polish law these people are not seen as refugees, according to the position of refugees as defined in UN documents. They're immigrants. Of course, many of them, I believe, are leaving Poland for Germany, Austria due to the social policy system, wellness care, etc. Do you think that's gonna be a problem?
– I think this is definitely a problem, due to the fact that it is already visible that even in the case of people so close culturally, ethnically like Ukrainians and Poles, or like Ukrainians and Germany, if we are dealing with a immense influx of people, there are many tensions. Although the biggest problem we have in Germany is the issue of African and arabian immigrants, there are besides conflicts with limited resources. In the long term, leaving the country should always be temporary. Refugees and shelter can never be a shortcut and a way to gain citizenship. This creates a very bad and improper encouragement. I think the most crucial European challenge is to guarantee peace and stableness in the region so that these people can go home. This besides applies to Ukraine. After all, if they do not return home, like the Syrians, then the Ukrainian state, the Ukrainian people – like the Syrian people – will not last the demographic catastrophe. It is so in Ukraine's interest to urgently make plans to enable these people to return home and to safe their future in their own country. As you pointed out, the existing asylum law never provided that people, even from war zones, could settle forever in another country. At any point they will gotta go home and rebuild their own country. I besides think that it would be possible to make in safe zones, especially in western Ukraine, more camps, separate cities – places where people could stay safely. But of course the main origin and the most crucial thing is to end the war so that they can go home and live in peace.
Several polls were conducted among Ukrainians surviving in Europe, not only in Poland, but besides in another countries. Most of them are very pessimistic about the future of their own country. They plan to stay here, in Poland, in Germany. Of course, due to the social strategy they like Germany or Austria. Nevertheless, this will be rather a hard issue. You are of course right that we should take into account the fact that the western regions of Ukraine are comparatively safe. possibly this is simply a good thought – a kind of improvement of your thought of remigration.
– Perhaps, although I am not an expert in this area. With respect to immigration and refugees, the current crisis in Europe is linked to African and arabian migration. In fact, she is the focus of interest to the Germans and Austrians, due to the fact that in fact she is the 1 who is causing most of the problems here. But I realize that if you live in a country like Poland, where there are no specified problems – there are also issues at the centre of attention.
Your book is very crucial for 1 more reason. We are examining the approach of the various European political parties to the concept of remigration, besides in the context that many of these parties are becoming increasingly centred. I mean Rassemblement National from France, Giorgia Meloni in Italy. It appears that those parties who have received support through ideas to tackle illegal migration and mass immigration are becoming more moderate. They forget their programs from the past, from erstwhile they were in opposition and were tiny formations. What is the reaction of the major patriotic national parties in Europe to your concept? Are they someway inspired by remigration, or do they reject it as besides radical?
Good question. In Germany and Austria, many politicians are very open to the thought of remigration, although AfD has its own definition of this term. In France, especially in the light of the conflict with Erik Zemmour, Mrs Le Pen has distanced herself from the word of remigration, even accepting and accepting the left-wing demonization of this concept. So there's a kind of war going on for that word. I don't have any fetishizing attitude to the word of remigration. For me it is more crucial to implement this concept. In Italy, where the most right-wing government in past was formed, as the full left-wing press wrote, we see no clear change in migration policy. There are areas where the situation is improving. I do not want to totally criticize Meloni here, but we, from an unpartisan point of view, as patriotic activists and writers, right-wing intellectuals – would like more efforts to be made, even in the direction of introducing a maritime blockade. erstwhile Meloni said she needed it to truly change the situation with mass migration. So I see here a very large problem. any even call it the melonization of the European right-wing, in which erstwhile a right-wing organization actually comes to power, everything goes on about the same way. There are no changes that we request in terms of demography, migration policy, household policy. If you look at this from a broader perspective, you can see that there is simply a process of population exchange.
In 50, 60 or 80 years Poland will inactive be Polish, but Germany will no longer be German, Italy will no longer be Italian, at least in urban centres. France will surely no longer be French. So we are in a terrible, disastrous situation. There is besides an cultural vote; the volume of voice in these immigration enclaves is expanding overnight. The voices of Muslims in France are already a decisive origin and in the UK and Belgium a very crucial element. That's why we request a real, clear, profound change. If right-wing populist parties only make cosmetic changes and apply apparent reforms – they will not halt this immense demographic disaster and large population exchange. That is why we see ourselves as avant-garde, as a corrective force for right-wing populist parties, if they are besides diluting their ideas in a way that makes it impossible to make the changes that their voters truly want. Millions of people in Europe who vote for right-wing parties vote for them due to the fact that they want their country to stay their country. That's why we make these concepts and ideas.
As far as AfD is concerned, I think she has very small chance of becoming a ruling organization or 1 of the ruling parties in Germany, at least according to the current polls. But let's look at Austria, at your country: do you think that your concept is more or little accepted by the Austrian Free Party?
– The Liberal organization frequently utilized the word migration. He doesn't distance himself from him. Although I don't think they're signing up to all single 1 of my thesis and point. They had and inactive have their own migration policy concept for decades. What I came up with is nothing fresh for them. However, from my point of view, from the outside, I think this group is definitely 1 of the most pro-remigration right-wing parties in Western Europe, if we can call Austria part of the West. I besides hope that Austria will be the first of the Western European countries to be on the left of the erstwhile Iron Curtain, in which a real change in migration can take place. Austria is an perfect country to carry out specified a real change in migration policy.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Martin Sellner (born 1989 in Vienna) is simply a writer, philosopher, founder and leader of the Austrian Identity Movement (Identitäre Bewegung Österreich). Author of the concept of remigration.
Think Poland, No. 35-36 (25.08-1.09.2024)
photo of wikipedia
