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.
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.
Civil Union is a Hungarian public benefit foundation, an NGO, registered in 2009. Our mission is the communal representation, and the protection of the interests of the electorate. We do so by helping to maintain public discourse about key issues of public interest and by contributing through our own means to maintaining a dialogue between the electorate and the political leadership, as highlighted by our motto: „Nihil de nobis, sine nobis”, that is, „Nothing about us without us”.
Our current top priority is the handling of the migration issue, which is crucial for Hungary, as well as the entirety of the European Union. We disagree with the forced settlement of migrants and we call for the reforms of the institutions of the European Union.
Today the EU as a whole, along with all its member states individually face major challenges. Economic and social troubles are aggravated by a moral crisis that stems from a loss of identity. It is in this vulnerable state that the migration crisis has stricken Europe. The leadership of the European Commission and of some member states have completely mismanaged this crisis. Their response is irreconcilable with the will and the interest of the electorate. Through their decisions, they have undermined peace, security, and the opportunity to preserve the cultural heritage of Europe. In our view, this highlights an increasing democratic deficit in the European Union.
On the one hand a fundamental shortcoming of the EU is that unelected officials make irredeemable decisions on crucial matters, without the participation of the citizens of the Union, without seeking and respecting their opinion. On the other hand some of the political leaders of the Union choose to ignore the will of the electorate.
Civil Union has taken several steps to draw the attention to the democratic deficit, and to the prevailing exclusion of the electorate that underlies the mismanagement of the current dangerous situation. We have sent open letters to the heads of states and heads of governments of EU members. This July, we submitted a petition calling for the dismissal of Jean-Claude Juncker and of the European Commission he leads.
The next foreseeable milestone for the Civil Union will be the referendum in Hungary scheduled for October 2nd, 2016, where the Hungarian electorate will be the first in the EU to have the opportunity to decide on whether they accept or reject the forced settlement of migrants in the country.
Earlier this year the Civil Union conducted a nationwide roadshow to gain a thorough understanding of the questions and opinions of the electorate. Now we urge the electorate to take part in the referendum, and we participate in the information campaign to enable the electorate to make an informed decision.
We will keep you informed about our efforts and experiences on this website.
On our website we are going to publish documents of our organization that might be of interest which could be utilized by clicking on the Civil Union’s links.
In our „News” column, you can find our own information materials and news. In the „Food for Thought” section we publish analyses and essays of experts of economic, social, security policy and other topics. In the column titled „From Our Partners”, we share writings by organizations outside Hungary who work in alliance with the Civil Union.
You are welcome to share your thoughts and insights with us by clicking on „Contact” on the menu.
We hope you find our page useful.
Attention Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker
President of the European Commission
Dear Mr. President,
Decisive majority of the European citizens watches with despair the impotence of the responsible organisations of the Union as regards the migrant affair. People believe that the measures necessary for the solution of the exodus are definitely obvious.
- Erection of the technical barriers at the Greek borders with the cooperation of the member states of the Union.
- Through responsible actions of the great powers sustainable life circumstance should be created at the starting points of the exodus thereby ensuring a possibility for the economic migrants to return.
- On the expenses of the designated funds allocated by the EU, the maintenance of the refugee camps in Turkey should temporarily and appropriately financed.
- The quote system for the obligatory acceptance of refugees, which was approved by the interior ministers of the Union should be deemed as null and void.
It could result in the violation of fundamental human rights if 160,000 persons as specified in the quote would be selected with non-transparent, unknown method in some subjective manner and the eventual rightful interests of the rest of the refugees would be neglected. School qualifications or useful professional skills may not be decisive. Double standards poison the criteria scheme of constitutionality.
In our petition written last week to president Martin Schulz we have already pointed out the problematic nature of the obligatory quota scheme which violates international law and the legal rules of the Union. (https://civilosszefogas.hu/peticio-martin-schulz-urnak/).
We have elected our Union leaders in order that they would guarantee the security of the European people and a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. One week ago by way of our letter addressed to the prime ministers of 28 countries of the Union, we asked the leaders to ask the opinion of their citizens regarding the migrant affair, through referendum or other form of national consultation (https://civilosszefogas.hu/level-az-europai-unio-tagallamai-miniszterelnokeinek/). Aggregated opinions might show the way to measures that the leaders of the countries should follow.
Dear Mr. President,
Your are burdened with severe responsibility, sooner or later account should be given regarding the efficiency of decisions to be passed on Sunday.
CÖF-CÖKA, a significant organisation of civil people in Hungary is prepared for organising an international march for peace by car to Brussels following the eventually unexpected ineffectiveness of the meeting.
For the time being, however, we have confidence in the acumen of the prime ministers of our common Europe and finally we wish successful work.
Leadership of CÖF-CÖKA