Oct 6, 2016 | food for thought
The neoliberal elite in Brussels has strayed from the path designated by the citizens of the European Union. What they’re doing is the opposite of Mother Theresa, the symbolic representative of Christian solidarity and love. She ignored all political interests to mediate divine mercy and bring help to all corners of the world.
However, Chancellor Angela Merkel, the embodiment of displaying solidarity in the interest of maintaining power, has not chosen the true Christian way. The steps she is taking lead backwards: the mission she considers to be personal has not reached the people in Africa and the Middle East who are in need, she has not dressed the war wounds of the injured, and she has not given water to quench the thirst of people with parched throats. The Mother Theresa-like role she played has been quickly unmasked. Mother Theresa travelled the world collecting donations in her ceaseless endeavour to bring aid to the needy. As a messenger of divine mercy, she was driven by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to perform the work that the Creator had given her.
Contrary to this approach, Willkommens-Kultur is a misguided conceptual “revelation” that opened the door to the Islamic armies travelling against the flow on Christianity’s one way street leading to God. The result is the persecution of Christians and chaos in society.
It has become clear that the structure of Western society as based on spiritual community, which dates back thousands of years, does not tolerate the introduction of foreign entities. The prophecy that an Islam heart can be transplanted into a Christian body is a false one.
While there are limits to validating political and business interests, love spread in the name of solidarity can be boundless. Citizens of Europe can now experience first-hand the difference between offering “aid” (as per Merkel) and the mission of Christian mercy and love.
All of Europe is suffering from a bad decision made by one woman, who for a long time had been exemplary in how to lead Germany. Ms Merkel has ended up caught in the net of financial giants who capitalize on human vanity and use Europe’s long standing success story in the interest of their aspirations for a global empire. The Chancellor has been persuaded to use the strength of the German economy to act as the unelected leader of the European Union. At first, the tactical approach developed by the magnates seemed be a clever gambit. The two leaders of the European Union, Schulz and Juncker, chosen as a result of contraselection, act as courageous wingmen who have Ms Merkel to thank for their utopic existence in Brussels. It is no wonder they servilely do everything their “creator” asks of them.
The fate of the Union cannot depend on the will of one woman or the global power-favouring bags of money lined up behind her. (More and more of us are starting to think so.)
The people of Europe have awoken. The community of people opposed to ultra-liberalism and terror democracy is growing ever stronger. Not only is the halo of the Chancellor fading away: hundreds of thousands of citizens are demanding that the outdated governance of the EU also be reformed. People are raising their voices against their fate being unilaterally decided by politicians longing for autocratic power. The financial lobby has deeply ingrained itself into the web of politics in an attempt to privatize Europe’s economy. Meanwhile, it is using the “temporary” stationing of the army it maintains to also acquire Europe’s land.
The antidote to this unfolding conspiracy could be for the citizens of Central and Eastern Europe to provide a peaceful but militant response. The democratically elected prime ministers of the V4 countries know that their countries were crushed by colonial oppression for more than 40 years following World War 2. These countries were simply thrown to the Soviet Union: the West purchased their own peace at our expense. The freedom we regained in 1989 is a treasure. The primary goal is to maintain the sovereignty of our nations. Moreover, neither the sovereignty nor the identity of Europe are for sale. By relying on their cultures, the allied nations of the European Union are able to find the solution to all of their common problems. There is no need for false “guardian angels.”
Brexit is a serious loss for the EU. It was caused by the leadership of the EU: they haughtily tout the departure of the British as some sort of victory. Thanks to them our defence has further weakened. The conquering hordes of economic migrants interspersed with terrorists are threatening our existence. Because of the imminent financial downfall and bankruptcy of Greece and Italy, which have been decreed to protect the Schengen borders, Europe has become exposed to the immigration policy of the bureaucrats in Brussels. The strongest member of the NATO, the USA acknowledges Turkey’s blackmail with eyes downcast.
The question is, what are we waiting for?
Europe’s countries have to have separate militaries that are each strong on their own. This increases the protection of their respective nations and, if the continent is in danger, they can form a deterrent force together with NATO.
In the European Union, the Hungarian government was the first to initiate a referendum on rejecting the quota of foreign migrants. The decision pertains to the future of our nation. There is no room here for siding with political parties, only for Hungarians sticking together.
Why, you ask?
Because the immigrants who attack our wives and daughters in the street and in the shadows will not ask whether we voted yes or no before they commit their brutal acts.
All of Europe will be watching us on 2 October. In 1956, the young people of Hungary paid for a few days of freedom with their lives. We now have to maintain our sovereignty without any weapons. We must do so peacefully and while demonstrating European solidarity. We must do so by voting no. The successful referendum is another message to the peoples of Europe.
The saying can finally be true: one for all and all for one! The Europe of the future needs a healthy approach and cannot stand for the Christian heart and soul to be transplanted with an Islamic one.
László Csizmadia
CÖF-CÖKA Chairman
Aug 29, 2016 | food for thought
August 29, 2016.
By: László Csizmadia
Recently the word “border” has become fashionable.
If someone asks, where the border is, everybody starts contemplating and answering in the manner characteristic of him, dependently upon the type of the question that can be about moral, politics or economy. Answers are restricted in terms of time and space. For instance we may say that we are happy beyond any border but will we be happy tomorrow and after tomorrow?
Let us approach the question from another side and we may say that our existence on Earth is among borders. We say several times that everything must have a border. Meanwhile we see that science pushes the borders of our knowledge farther and farther.
It is a fact that human civilisation exists among borders. People dependently upon their inclusion in a community recognise the moral and legal borders created by them. If our environment delineated by borders is exposed to demolition by external or internal forces, this will lead to discrepancies because both narrowing and widening needs consent. A look to the far and beyond may suggest that should there be no consent regarding the so-called “border issue”, the problem may lead to civil war or world war. In such times an aspect of self-defence can be actions against external forces and the solution of internal conflicts.
Our history justified the roles of borders all times. To such extent that not only moral, political and economical borders were created but the borders of civilisations have become tangible. Distinct and socially operated civilisations that have been created by peoples socialised in various territories have come to life with decisive character worldwide. There are sharp differences and contrasts between the civilisations of the eastern and the western world. In the East religion and faith are given primary role and they wish to continuously take part in the control of the state. Although western Christian civilisation deemed religion to be important, it always strived to separate the role of the Churches from the governance of the state. To this end such means were used as the emergence of democracy hand in hand with political pluralism. Thus the arena of the struggle for power was realised in the course of fights between party politics. In the western civilisation the role of religion and faith has gradually weakened, Churches were ousted from power therefore moral values have become of secondary importance.
As a result of the two world wars and the cold war, this process separated West-Europe and Central-East Europe. The West could enjoy wellbeing not entirely without reparations that is deserved by the triumphant winner of the war. Meanwhile on the East, in the territories flung to the Soviet Union freedom had ceased and colonial fate has become daily experience instead. Whilst in the western part of Europe, within the frames of democracy and constitutionality various party ideologies and isms struggled with each other, the eastern people after 50 years of colonial fate regained their self-governance. It is not a coincidence that the peoples of Central-Eastern Europe – including the West Balkans – intensely fear of every external power, aggressive intervention (money power, great powers). The reaction of peoples getting rid of the shackle of communism is the refusal of the mutants of classic ideologies and isms. They cannot be fed with the bogus political fodder offering old flavours, which is made up of post-communism, neo-liberalism and extreme nationalism no matter how much they are disguised.
Self-mutilating forces of the western civilisation ravaged specifically in the second half of the 20th century. They targeted at the values of the Jewish-Christian civilisation and concentrated their power on their withering. On the contrary, on the East, the keep increasing number of believers of Islam and the Mohammedan religion established spreading and strong communities. According to their professed religious faith they claim for the right to govern the life of the state. With their grandeurly delusioned imams they prepare for globally hegemonic role.
The European crowd of sober civil citizens agree that there are borders that must not be transgressed. The soil of Europe and the lebensraum of its citizens may not be left to conquerors. On one side we feel on our skin the contemporary conquest of migrants whilst on the other side we experience the globalising enforcements of money-moguls. Europe does not wish to become the arena for the struggle between aggressive missionaries and money magnets.
The money power hiding in the background believes that it can hold tight the snaffle rein of migration. After the Arab Spring it could weaken the European civilisation with migrants settling. Their ideas are confirmed by the NO-GO zones that spontaneously appear in European countries, which represent the nests of civil war. According to their plans the migrants after losing their roots and set in motion through unrealisable promises will in Europe become slaves without resorts, who will reduce the work opportunities of the native people and press wages down. Aliens who do not wish to find employment will claim social benefits thereby narrowing the satisfaction of life necessities of local inhabitants. The European human will lose his identity and will be as much exposed to external impacts as his migrant neighbours.
The money power machine, however, may be wrong. The Christian civilisation looking back to a thousand-year past is strong enough to mobilise its intellectual supremacy and cultural forces to repulse colonisation planned in this tricky way. Threatening omens are the garrisoning of American military forces in Europe and TTIP and CETA that serve the commercial interest of multinational undertakings. Timely recognition of inferior wills shows the way to the reform of the institutional system of the European Union. Elected new Union governance is needed. The fate of Europe could be decided by the prime ministers of the European Council who gained their authorisation from their Parliaments. After this first step would have been taken, those items from among the four-point proposal of the Hungarian prime minister worded in Warsaw may not be disregarded that urge the establishment of independent European military forces, and place the stability of the Union’s economy in the centre through the observation of financial and economical rules that should in each state equally be observed and double standards may not be applied.
As regards the settling of foreign immigrants according to quotes, the decisions must be passed by the sovereign nation states through polling their people. It is worthwhile to offer to the attention of chancellor Merkel the wise words of Helmut Kohl, which should be approved by Christian communities:
“Help in order that your neighbour can help himself”
These words can be interpreted in no other manner but only so that the immigrants would be treated as migrant workers. A migrant worker, after the termination of his defined term labour relationship should return home. He should send his wages to his relatives who stay in their homeland thereby helping the reconstruction of his country.
Should a nation decide that it wishes to create safe lebensraum for generations to come, it could do so freely. We Hungarians think that we do not want take part in a race on the track where others are chasing the possibly highest GDP. For us the sustainability of the lebensraum of our children and grandchildren and the values of the nature around us are important. We wish to solve our demographic problems through subsidies granted for families. Family is the most important representative of the national existence, the smallest community of economic life whose members can be considered from retired parents to newborn babies.
In addition to remaining watchful, Europe’s civil citizens should warn politicians that “borders” may not be eluded. Political ambitions beyond all borders are equally internal and external enemy of the Union’s community and the sovereign nation states.
The referendum about the refusal of the obligatory settlement of migrants reflects the demand of the Hungarian citizens which has been drafted and told and written at several places. The government listened to the people’s will, the future of Europe and the Hungarian nation may not be put to risk. With our “NO” votes we should make it unambiguous that there is no bigger value than the freedom of our citizens.
About the author: László Csizmadia is the president of CÖF-CÖKA.
Jul 1, 2016 | food for thought
By: Tamás Fricz
In the last weeks two overly influential European politicians talked about Europe’s possible future and their visions about Europe of the next decades. These two politicians are Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister and Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission, i.e. persons who in fact influence and are able to influence the future of Europe and/or the European Union.
Before starting to cite their speeches I have to make the following statement: if the vision of Schäuble and Timmermans will not remain barely a vision but would – despite or rather due to the Brexit – become practice, life, reality, then we Hungarians and the citizens of Europe should reconsider whether keeping the Union together is still reasonable or should the leadership of a Union of this type be reasonably accepted, or should we consider other solutions.
Wolfgang Schäuble has given an interview to Die Zeit about the immigration policy of the German government and among others he stated: migrants should be let in order that Germany’s population would not be inbred. He says: “isolation is what would ruin us – it would lead us into incest.” He also adds: “Muslims are an enrichment of our openness and our diversity.” […] „Look at the third generation of Turks, especially the women. That is an enormous innovation potential.”
It is nonplussing.
So far we believed that the German government opens up the gates for immigrants in order to find replacement for labour force that decreases from one year to the other. Well, now we got an answer marked by vigour: this Schäuble who is usually mentioned as an anointed expert of financial affairs, this Schäuble who until now “excelled” primarily in continuously enforcing economic sanctions on Greece, has suddenly become an expert of migration, civilisation and demography. Until now we could rightfully believe that he will be the last one who tries to explain for the public the totally suicidal and incomprehensible Willkommenskultur not from the aspect of economic and labour force replacement necessities. However, totally unexpectedly Schäuble discovers the real and fundamental importance of migration in the mixing of German and Arabic, Muslim peoples, races. In the course of that interview, the finance minister extends the topic and puts it into not only German but European context and indirectly states that Europe will degenerate and become incapable of living if European races will not unite with Arabic or other races.
Schäuble’s visions are not only frightening but are indefensible even for the first sight. What sort of racial degeneration threats Germany with her population of 80 millions where ab ovo several German ethnic groups live together, Bavarians, Saxons, Swabians, Prussians, Rhinelanders, North Germans, etc., not mentioning Europe that is well-known for her wonderful national multitude, starting from the Celtics through the German peoples to the Slaves and further on. How can racial degeneration be mentioned in this case? On the contrary: European peoples, ethnic groups, nations, minorities in their multifariousness show a larger unit, an operable system that one could call culture or civilisation. Specifically this unity building on multifariousness would deteriorate when and if it would mix with other cultures and civilisations, which could result in its weakness, deterioration and finally in it its extinction.
Not mentioning that the Muslim world is characterised by inbreeding, marriages between cousins, meanwhile wedding with Christians is expressly forbidden and deemed to be sin. What is the finance minister speaking about? What could be the consequence of mixing between Muslims and Europeans which he deems to be appropriate and desirable? Not at all the consequence what he is thinking of. Rather, on the basis of the Islamic Law the marriages with Muslim men would be followed by the islamisation of the European, German women, and this process would never go to the opposite direction. All these would lead to life-and-death struggle between not only parallel societies but rather between parallel cultures and religions, leading to destruction, war and deterioration.
But let us focus on Frans Timmermans who told to the members of the European Parliament the following: “… diversity is humanity’s destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future. That’s where humanity is heading. And those politicians trying to sell to their electorates a society that is exclusively composed of people from one culture, are trying to portray a future based on a past that never existed, therefore that future will never be. Europe will be diverse, like all other parts of the world will be diverse.”
Diversity in this context means nothing else but the racial, national, ethnic and genetic mixing of the nation-states. However, the EC vice president goes beyond that and says that none of the countries – EU member states – may contemplate a society that is exclusively composed of people from one culture. Now this is about the unification and mixing of cultures and civilisations. It is thus impossible for Poland or Hungary to dream about building their societies further on on the Christian cultural habits and traditions. Timmermans states with annoying arrogance: there will be no such future! European countries will be characterised by racial and cultural diversity.
In other words: everything will radically change and turn upward, the European culture will melt into perhaps a new and unprecedented globalist summit culture foretelling a beautiful future.
And this is told by no one else but one of the leaders of the European Union.
Coming back to Wolfgang Schäuble: the thoughts of the German finance minister on German and European inbreeding or on the magnificence and wonderful possibilities intrinsic in the mixing of Muslim and German, European peoples are from the scientific and/or cultural aspect indefensible and ridiculous. Now the question is: why does he speak so?
The answer can be found at Timmermans who simply declares that racial and cultural mixing and multifariousness is the future of Europe and the nation-states. This will happen and that’s it. In other words what we are facing here is nothing else but an ideology-based vision, plan of some leading European politicians regarding a huge neoliberal-global attempt to change the world; after communism and fascism the third gigantic vision that is now aimed at forcing the entire world on its knees.
I think if we are searching the reasons behind finance minister Schäuble’s unexpected becoming to an anthropologist and demography expert or his “enlightening”, then it is worthwhile totally coincidently and silently mentioning that before the publication of this interview, he – for the first time – participated in the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group, in Dresden. There, in general, participants have time to schmooze. But this may be an overly incidental coincidence…
I have to repeat again: if a political elite “hallmarked” by Timmermanses, Schäubles, and, of course, Merkels and Martin Schulzes will determine Europe’s future, a certain brave, new global world, then in fact the fundamental questions related to EU could not be circumvented.
About the author: Tamás Fricz is an economist and political scientist.
