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.
