Gerard Gierlinski, paleontolog na poljskem geološkem inštitutu, je poleti 2002 mislil, da bo imel v Grčiji romantične počitnice s svojim dekletom Beato Piechik. Na koncu se je izkazalo, da ga je sprehod po plažah Trahilosa na zahodu Krete pripeljal do odkritja, ki dramatično spreminja dozdajšnjo zgodbo o človeški rasi in o nastanku človeka; zgodbo, o kateri med znanstveniki še vedno potekajo ostre razprave.
»Bilo je okoli poldneva in sončna svetloba je bila premočna, da bi lahko videl vse podrobnosti odtisov. Toda takoj sem lahko ugotovil, da to niso dinozavrove sledi. Posnel sem več fotografij odtisov in si zapisal koordinate, da bi lahko znova našel ta kraj,« je lani za Smithsonian magazine povedal Gierlinski.
Po idiličnih počitnicah se je vrnil domov, kretskih odtisov pa si nikakor ni mogel izbiti iz glave. Osem let se je spraševal o njih. Leta 2010 se je vrnil na Kreto. »Bil je že skoraj večer, ko sem ponovno obiskal tisto kamnito ploščo na plaži, na kateri turisti pogosto sedijo, ko pijejo in zrejo v morje. Tokrat so dolge sence jasno razkrile obris stopinj – odtisov, ki so jasno spominjali na obliko njegove lastne noge,« se je spominjal Gierlinski.
Tokrat je na Kreto prišel skupaj s kolegom Grzegorzom Niedzwiedzkim, še enim poljskim paleontologom, ki je aktiven na švedski Univerzi v Uppsali. Podrobno sta preučila sledi stopal in 2017 objavila svoja odkritja.
Sledi 50 odtisov človeških stopal, ki sta jih našla, so stari 6,05 milijona let (sprva so bili datirana na 5,7 milijona let, nove raziskave so potrdile, da so 0,3 milijona let starejši), segajo v čas miocena. Odtis stopala desne noge je tipično človeški. Kar je glede na starost odtisa senzacionalno odkritje, kajti prejšnje raziskave so naše prednike postavljale v Afriko (z opičjim stopalom).
Vse od odkritja fosilov avstralopitekov v južni in vzhodni Afriki velja prepričanje, da človeška rasa izvira iz Afrike, piše švedski portal Forskning. Nedavno odkriti fosili, najdeni v isti regiji, kot so ikonični 3,7 milijona let stari odtisi stopal Laetoli iz Tanzanije, ki kažejo človeška stopala in pokončno hojo, so utrdili idejo, da hominidi (zgodnji člani človeške rase) ne le izvirajo iz Afrike, ampak da je tam ostal v »izolaciji« več milijonov let, preden se je razširil v Evropo in Azijo. Odkritje približno 6,05 milijona let starih odtisov človeških stopal s Krete so to teorijo obrnili na glavo in nakazali, da je resničnost bolj zapletena.
Človeška stopala imajo – za razliko od stopal vseh drugih kopenskih živali – zelo izrazito obliko. Gre za kombinacijo dolgega podplata, petih kratkih naprej obrnjenih prstov brez krempljev (s palcem, ki je večji od drugih prstov). Človekovo stopalo je edinstveno. Stopala naših najbližjih ´sorodnikov´, velikih opic, so bolj podobna človeški roki s palcem, ki štrli ob strani. Laetolijeve stopinje, za katere domnevajo, da jih je naredil avstralopitek, so precej podobne tistim sodobnih ljudi, le da je peta ožja in podplat nima pravilnega loka. Nasprotno pa je imel 4,4 milijona let star Ardipithecus ramidus iz Etiopije, najstarejši hominid, znan iz dokaj popolnih fosilov, mrežasta stopala. Raziskovalci, ki so opisali Ardipithecus, so verjeli, da je to neposredni prednik poznejših hominidov,
Odtisi stopal iz Trahilosa na zahodni Kreti so nedvomno podobni človeški obliki. To še posebej velja za prste na nogah. Nožni palec je po obliki, velikosti in položaju podoben našemu. Takoj znotraj nožnega palca je, tako kot pri nas, izrazita konveksna blazinica stopala, česar pri opicah ni. Podplat je sorazmerno krajši od odtisov stopal Laetoli, vendar imajo enako splošno obliko. Skratka, oblika Trahilosovih stopinj nedvoumno kaže, da pripadajo zgodnjemu hominidu. Odtisi pri Trahilosu so ostali na peščeni morski obali, verjetno delti majhne reke, odtisi v Laetoliju so nastali v vulkanskem pepelu.
»Novo odkritje je kontroverzno zaradi starosti in lokacije, kjer so bili najdeni odtisi,« pravi Per Ahlberg, profesor na Oddelku za biologijo organizmov na Univerzi Uppsala in zadnji avtor študije in dodaja: »To novo odkritje izpodbija uveljavljeno pripoved o zgodnji človeški evoluciji in bo verjetno povzročilo veliko razprav. Ali bo znanstvena skupnost, ki se ukvarja s človeškim izvorom, sprejela fosilne odtise kot prepričljiv dokaz, da so bili hominidi na Kreti med miocenom, bomo še videli.«
Znanstveniki se sicer strinjajo, da so pri Trahilosu najdena stopala in da so stara več kot šest milijonov let, toda tisti, ki zagovarjajo tezo o afriškem, evolucijskem izvoru človeške vrste, iščejo vse mogoče izgovore, da bi odkritje s Krete postavili pod vprašaj. »Nekateri odtisi so videti kot dvonožne živali, vendar je veliko drugih odtisov zelo dvoumnih in različnih velikosti. Nekateri med njimi sploh niso podobni odtisom stopal. Gre torej za zelo drzno teorijo na podlagi informacij, ki lahko dajo različne razlage,« pravi Julien Louys, paleontolog z Univerze Griffith. Israel Hershkovitz, antropolog z Univerze v Tel Avivu, špekulira, da so odtise pustile pozne opice. »Vse, kar imamo iz Evrope, je skupina predčloveških opic,« pravi. Najnovejši članek v Nature pod vprašaj postavlja tudi starost odtisov stopal (vendar le na podlagi geoloških kart).
Odtisi iz Trahilosa razdvajajo znanstvenike in za zdaj ostajajo skrivnost. Če bi sprejeli novo teorijo švedske univerze, starodavna stopala (ob sedem milijonov let starih najdenih kosti hominidov, ki so jih našli v Grčiji in Bolgariji) ne postavljajo pod vprašaj samo teorijo o afriškem izvoru človeka, ampak tudi tezo o evolucijskem nastanku človeške vrste. Kar je za večino sekularnih znanstvenikov čista herezija v znanosti. Toda vse bolj se zdi, da bo treba zgodovino človeka napisati na novo, še posebej zato, ker še niso našli »vmesnega člena« med človekom in opico, ki bi nedvomno potrjeval, da se je človek skozi evolucijo razvil iz opice. Prav zato odtisi stopal s Krete, ki so povsem človeški in se niso mogli pojavili ´iz nič´, begajo.
»Bog je ustvaril človeka po svoji podobi, po Božji podobi ga je ustvaril, moškega in žensko je ustvaril.« (1 Mojzes 1:27)
Včeraj je minila 15. obletnica oktobrske revolucije. Da se ne bom ponavljal, je spodaj tekst, ki sem ga objavil ob 100. obletnici. Samo toliko, da si osvežimo spomin: kdo jo je financiral, kdo je bil na Petrovi listi, kakšna je bila vloga židovskih bankirjev, kaj so o revoluciji pisali mediji, ki danes veljajo za vplivne na globalni ravni (Guardian, Times)?
Tukaj je tekst, ki sem ga objavil 24. oktobra 2017.
105 let oktobrske revolucije: Kdo je financiral in vodil rdeči teror?
Mineva 100 let od oktobrske revolucije, ki se je v Petrogradu začela v noči s 24. na 25. oktober 1917 po starem (julijanskem) oziroma od 7. na 8. november po novem (gregorijanskem) koledarju in ki se jo je prijelo tudi ime boljševiška revolucija. Ideja socializma (komunizma), ki se je v naslednjih desetletjih razširila v Azijo, Južno Ameriko, Afriko in po 2. svetovni vojni v Vzhodno Evropo, je povzročila morijo in opustošenje brez primere v zgodovini človeštva. Ne mislim se ukvarjati s socialističnim gospodarstvom, niti s politiko komunistov (o obojem sem že pisal), ampak o malo znanih podrobnostih boljševizma, ki so v resnici ključne za razumevanje dogajanj v 20. stoletja in obeh svetovnih vojn: (prvič), kdo so bili boljševiki; (drugič), kdo jih je financiral; (tretjič), kdo si je izmislil in vodil NKVD (kasneje KGB), zloglasno Stalinovo tajno policijo, ki je morila drugače misleče politične nasprotnike in po vzoru katere so nastale vse najbolj razvpite tajne policije (od Gestapa prek Mosada do Udbe, Stasija in Securitate).
Leta 2003 je bila v Nemčiji za (ne)besedo leta izbrana (beseda z negativnim prizvokom) beseda Tätervolk, ki se nanaša na idejo kolektivne krivde. To pomeni, da bi moral biti celoten narod odgovoren za dejanja prednikov. Sprejem nemške kolektivne krivde (za holokavst), s katero so Nemci živeli (in še živijo) od konca 2. svetovne vojne, je precej jezil Martina Hohmanna, nemškega poslanca CDU (danes je član AfD), ki je ob 3. oktobru (nemški dan enotnosti) 2003 v znamenitem govoru z naslovom Pravičnost za Nemčijo (Gerechtigkeit für Deutschland) na podlagi dokumentov iz sovjetskih arhivov razkril nekatere podatke o vodilnih kadrih NKVD. Gre za tako imenovano Petrovovo listo (1934 – 1941), ki je vodilne uslužbence zloglasne tajne policije razvrstila po različnih kriterijih, tudi po narodnosti. Iz dveh tabel je razvidno, da je bilo med leti 1934 in 1937 skoraj 40 odstotkov vodilnih v NKVD Židov, v celotnem sistemu državne varnosti pa je bilo med zaposlenimi 7 odstotkov Židov. Kasneje se je delež sicer zmanjševal (leta 1950 je delež Židov v operativnem sovjetskem kadru znašal le še 1,5 odstotka), a so bili v času največjega Stalinovega rdečega terorja (predstavljali samo 1,8 odstotka celotnega prebivalstva boljševističnega imperija, Rusov je bilo denimo 80 odstotkov) ključni za odstranjevanje ideoloških nasprotnikov socializma.
Martin Hohmann je s preprostimi matematičnimi operacijami izračunal, da je bilo slabih dva odstotka Židov odgovornih za skoraj 40 odstotkov stalinističnega terorja, medtem ko 80 odstotkov Rusov »samo« za 30 odstotkov. Povedano drugače. Če je Stalinov režim (po zelo konservativni oceni) med leti 1924 in 1953 odgovoren za smrt okoli 20 milijonov ljudi (po eni od teorij naj bi ta številka dosegala 62 milijonov), to pomeni, da so Židje v Rusiji odgovorni za smrt najmanj 8 milijonov ljudi, kar je več, kot je bilo uradno (po židovskih virih) žrtev holokavsta (6 milijonov). In naprej. To pomeni, da so Židje v Sovjetski zvezi 59-krat bolj odgovorni za rdeči teror na prebivalca kot pa avtohtoni Rusi, je v govoru poudaril Hohmann in se vprašal, zakaj se od Židov ne pričakuje kolektivna krivda za morijo drugače mislečih v času vladavine Stalina. Zoper Hohmanna je sledil pogrom, še enkrat več se je izkazalo, da je vsakršna kritika Židov v Nemčiji tabu tema, kar je zapisal celo novinar BBC.
Prijateljstvo in tesne vezi med boljševiki in Židi so še starejšega datuma. Za uvod se samo za trenutek ustavimo pri Marxu. Karl Marx, ideolog komunizma, najbrž najbolj zlobne ideologije v zgodovini, je bil vzgajan v judovstvu. Starša sta pobegnila pred antisemitizmom, Karlov dedek je bil židovski rabin z imenom Mordecai. Na Marxa je najbolj vplival Moses Hess, francoski židovski filozof, ki mu je omogočil, da je Rheinische Zeitung uporabil za levičarsko platformo. Hess je bil tudi tisti, ki je v komunista spreobračal Friedricha Engelsa, bogatega tekstilnega magnata, ki je kasneje financiral Karla Marxa iz dobičkov, ki jih je ustvaril v Nemčiji in Veliki Britaniji.
Marksizem se je dokaj hitro razširil po Evropi in pljusknil tudi prek luže, kjer so ga Židje, ki so se v 19. stoletju iz Rusije množično selili v Zahodno in Vzhodno Evropo ter ZDA, vzeli za svojega in prek njega uresničevali svoje interese. Komentator je v The Jewish Chronicle(najstarejši židovski časopis na svetu) zapisal, da je razlog, zakaj Židje sprejemajo boljševizem, v tem, da so »ideali boljševizma v mnogih točkah usklajeni z najboljšimi ideali judovstva«. Tudi zato so Židje financirali boljševike in jih podpirali. Ko so denimo boljševiki spomladi 1917 v Carnegie Hall v New Yorku slavili odstopno izjavo Nikolaja II. Ruskega, carja Rusije, kralja Poljske in princa Finske, so dobili telegram podpore od Jacoba Schiffa, bogatega židovskega poslovneža, ki je vodil investicijsko banko Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Ta banka je bila ena od ustanoviteljic ameriške centralne banke (FED), ki je nastala tako, da so židovski bančniki izpodrinili bogate industrialce, ki so nasprotovali centralni banki (o tem sem pisal TUKAJ). Telegram je objavil New York Times, Schiff pa je skušal zanikati svojo vpletenost, a je njegov vnuk John trideset let kasneje v New York Journalu (3. februar 1949) razkril, da je Jacob Schiff za boljševiško revolucijo namenil 20 milijonov dolarjev. In prav Schiff je leta 1905 že financiral Japonce v vojni proti carski Rusiji, istega leta so židovski bankirji financirali rusko revolucijo, ki ni bila uspešna.
V Evropi je bil eden glavnih financerjev boljševikov Olof Ashberg iz Stockholma, Žid, ki se je še po 2. svetovni vojni v Švici sestajal z Rusi. Diplomatski krogi v Švici so ga opisovali kot »sovjetskega bankirja«, ki je leta 1917 z izdatnimi denarnimi sredstvi Trockemu in Leninu (slednji je veljal za Rusa, a je imel nemške, ruske, židovske in mongolske korenine, njegova žena Nedežda pa naj bi bila Židinja, saj je njena družina kot družinski pogovorni jezik uporabljala jidiš, se pravi nemščino s hebrejskimi koreninami) pomagal izpeljati oktobrsko revolucijo. Takih židovskih bankirjev in poslovnežev, ki so financirali boljševike, je bilo še ve, a o njih kdaj drugič.
Kakorkoli, kmalu po židovskemu slavju v New Yorku je nazaj v Rusijo odpotoval Lev Trocki (v ZDA je pisal za Novy Mir, ki ga je Times kasneje označil za židovski časopis), ki je kasneje postal eden ključnih oblastnikov. Po njegovi zaslugi je rdeča zvezda najprej postala simbol Rdeče armade, kasneje pa komunizma. Med zgodovinarji krožita dve teoriji, kako je prišlo do tega. Po prvi peterokraka zvezda predstavlja pet prstov delavca, po drugi pa naj bi Trocki skušal najti simbol, ki spominja na davidovo zvezdo. Še najbližje heksagramu je bil pentagram.
Pravo ime Trockega je bilo Lev Davidovich Bronstein, po prihodu nazaj v Rusijo je postal najpomembnejši komisar, desna roka Lenina, ki je najbolj pripomogla, da so boljševiki oktobra 1917 v Moskvi in Peterburgu zrušili kratkotrajno demokratično izvoljeno vlado, ki je nastopila po odstopu carja Nikolaja (april – oktober 1917). Tudi zato so takratni kronisti iz Rusije poročali, da ni šlo za delavski upor oziroma ruski državni udar, ampak da je bila oktobrska revolucija pravzaprav židovski državni udar.
Guardianova (takrat se je časopis imenoval še Manchester Guardian in je bil za razliko od danes še verodostojen) dopisnica iz Moskve Ariadne Tyrkova Williams je zapisala: »V sovjetski republiki so vsi odbori in komisariati napolnjeni z Židi.«Winston Churchill, ki je pisal za Illustrated Sunday Herald, je 8. februarja 1920 zapisal: »Z izjemo Lenina je večina vodilnih oseb Židov. Poleg tega glavni navdih in gonilna moč prihajata od judovskih voditeljev.« A najpopolnejši opis rasnega ozadja članov boljševistične oblasti je dal Robert Wilton, dopisnik Timesa iz Rusije. Leta 1920 je v francoščini izdal knjigo Les derniers jours des Romanov, v kateri je objavil seznam članov centralnega komiteja komunistov, ljudskih komisarjev, izvršilnega odbora boljševikov in članov komisije za izredne razmere. Se pravi seznam tistih, ki so imeli v rokah oblast. Iz seznamov je razvidno, da je bila več kot polovica članov centralnega komiteja Židov, tudi več kot polovica članov sveta ljudskih komisarjev je bila Židov. Wilton, ki ga še danes obtožujejo antisemitizma, je pet let po objavi knjige umrl, uradni vzrok smrti je bil rak.
Podobno kot Tyrkova in Wilton so v svoje matične države poročali tudi drugi dopisniki in diplomati. William Oudendyk, nizozemski konzul v Sankt Peterburgu, je v zahodno Evropo poslal depešo, v kateri je zapisal, da »boljševizem organizirajo in izvajajo Židje«. Njegovo poročilo je bilo aprila 1919 vključeno »belo knjigo o Rusiji« oziroma v Zbirko poročil o Rusiji I., a je bilo hitro umaknjeno. Stotnik Montgomery Schuyler (G2 Intelligence), ki je bil operativec ameriških sil v Sankt Peterburgu, je zapisal: »Boljševistično gibanje je bilo že od samega začetka vodeno in pod nadzorom najmočnejših ruskih Židov.« Ta zapis hrani državni arhiv ZDA, kjer sta tudi dva telegrama. Prvi je od konzula Summersa (2. maj 1918) iz Moskve, ki navaja: »Židje prevladujejo v lokalni sovjetski vladi, protižidovsko razpoloženje med ljudmi narašča.« Drugi telegram je poslal Caldwell, konzul v Vladivostoku (5. julij 1918). Zapisal je: »Petdeset odstotkov sovjetske vlade v vsakem mestu sestavljajo Židje najhujše vrste«.
Ko je januarja 1924 Lenin umrl, se je začel boj za njegovo nasledstvo. Zmagal je Josip Stalin, ki ga še danes opisujejo kot antisemita, a resnica je diametralno nasprotna. Stalin je imel tri žene in vse so bile Židinje. Njegovi otroci so bili vzgajani v židovskem duhu, tudi poročali so se z Židi (hčerka Svetlana iz prvega zakona je imela štiri može, trije od teh so bili Židi). Podobno je bilo s Stalinovim pomočnikom Vjačeslavom Molotovom, enako z drugimi Stalinovimi nasledniki, kot je denimo Leonid Brežnjev, ki je bil poročen z Židinjo, njegovi otroci so bili vzgajani kot Židje. In še nekaj. Prav vsi zloglasni šefi boljševistične tajne službe, od Uritskyga do Berije, so bili Židje.
Enak recept je bil uporabljen drugod po Evropi. Leta 1919 je Bela Kun na Madžarskem organiziral socialistično revolucijo. Skoraj vsi člani vlade so bili Židje, kar je tudi povzročilo padec režima, saj jih Madžari niso marali. S sovjetsko pomočjo so se Židje vrnili na oblast leta 1945, ko je bil postavljen triumvirat: Matyas Rakosi (rojen kot Rosenfeld), Erno Gero (rojen kot Singer) in Zoltan Vas. Prva dva sta bila tudi člana krvave Kunove vlade. Najslavnejši madžarski Žid in eden najškodljivejših Zemljanov je danes George Soros.
Enako je bilo na Češkem, Poljskem, v Romuniji in tudi Titovi Jugoslaviji, kjer je bil glavni diktatorjev svetovalec Žid Moša Pijade. John Gunther je v knjigi Za zaveso v poglavju Tito in Jugoslavija zapisal, da je bil Pijade glavni mentor Josipa Broza in da je »ideološko strukturo, ki jo ima, dobil od tega pametnega starca«. Benton Bradberry je leta 2012 v knjigi razbil mit o Nemcih kot najbolj zlobnem narodu, ki je zakrivil obe svetovni vojni. Avtor trdi, da je šlo za agresivno politiko do Nemčije, nestabilnost sveta v 20. stoletju pa je zakrivila boljševistična revolucija, za katero so stali Židje. Bradberry je zapisal: »Najboljši dokaz o židovski naravi oktobrske revolucije in prevladi Židov v boljševistični vladi je tudi njihova vloga v komunističnih revolucijah, ki so se dogajale po Evropi.«
Po prvi svetovni vojni so Židje skušali prevzeti oblast tudi v Nemčiji. S pomočjo sovjetskega veleposlanika in židovskega denarja je skupina Spartak skušala zrušiti vlado. Upor je bil zatrt, voditelja Roza Luxemburg in Karl Liebknecht sta bila usmrčena. Židje so kasneje financirali nacionalsocializem oziroma zloglasno NSDAP, ki naj bi bila med 2. svetovno vojno odgovorna za holokavst. In ravno na to je leta 2003 v svojem govoru članom CDU opozoril uvodoma omenjeni Martin Hohmann: nihče ne terja od Židov, da na podlagi dedne krivde prevzamejo kolektivno odgovornost za početje med boljševiško revolucijo, se pravi, da bi bili kolektivno krivi za tisto, kar so počeli dve generaciji prej njihovi predniki. Zato tudi od Nemcev nima pravice nihče terjati, da sedanje generacije nosijo breme holokavsta. Zaradi teh besed so ga napadli mediji, obrekovali so ga v CDU (iz poslanske skupine je bil izgnan 14. novembra 2003, stranko je zapustil aprila 2004), kazensko so ga preganjali. A pregon so morali opustiti, ker v svojem govoru ni povedal ničesar neresničnega, njegova skovanka Tätervolk pa je postala (ne)beseda leta 2003.
Nedavno nazaj sem pisal o novih uredniških smernicah revije Nature, da ne bo objavila tistih znanstvenih člankov, ki bi lahko škodili določeni (ranljivi) skupini ljudi. No, revijo ima v lasti založniška hiša Springer Nature, ki je tudi lastnik dokumentarnih oddaj in revije Scientific American. In ta je poskrbela za novo norost.
Najstarejša ameriška poljudnoznanstvena revija, ki jo kot učni pripomoček uporabljajo tudi najstniki v srednjih šolah, v drugi epizodi dokumentarne serije »Vprašanje spola« trdi, da ženske do pred koncem 18. stoletja niso obstajale. »Zahodna znanost je priznavala le en spol – moški – in je žensko telo obravnavala kot manjvredno različico tega. Premik, ki ga zgodovinarji imenujejo ´model dveh spolov´, je služil predvsem za krepitev spolnih in rasnih delitev,« trdijo v Scientific American.
Ta trditev je absurdna, skrb vzbujajoče je, da jo uporabljajo v šolah in celo na univerzah. Tako kot kritična rasna teorija temelji na akademskih delih, ki so v zadnjih treh desetletjih vztrajno pridobivali na vplivu, medtem ko je le malo resnih in zdravorazumskih akademskih krogov opazilo normalizacijo te teorije, pravi Daniel Greenfield. Tako na univerzi Johns Hopkins najdete predavanja na temo ´Spolna binarnost in ameriški imperij´. Predavanje izhaja iz trditve, da »je spolna binarnost nastala zaradi kolonializma in državnega obrtništva; zlasti skozi ameriški imperializem«. In medtem, ko je zahodna kultura priznavala samo en spol (moškega), so na vseh celinah in »v vsej zapisani zgodovini cvetoče kulture priznavale, spoštovale in integrirale več kot dva spola«.
Gre za transspolni zgodovinski revizionizem, ki ni omejen samo na šole in predavalnice. Na antropologe pritiskajo, naj prenehajo identificirati trupla v grobnicah kot moške ali ženske. Zgodovinske osebnosti, kot je Ivana Orleanska, so posmrtno redefinirane kot transspolne. Glavni cilj je ponovno zamisliti in osmisliti zgodovino, v kateri moški in ženske niso obstajali, dokler jih niso ´izumili´ imperialistični zahodnjaki, da bi zatirali nezahodnjake, ki so jih kolonizirali.
Najhujša obrobna rasna in spolna norčija iz sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja 70. let je že zdavnaj postala akademska doktrina, piše Greenfield v tekstu z naslovom Transspolni zgodovinski revizionizem. To je zmagoslavje kulturnih marksistov, ki so izkoristili politiko identitete za strmoglavljenje zahodne civilizacije in vrednot
Intersekcijska revizionistična zgodovina je argument za svet, v katerem Zahod nikoli ni obstajal. Od najzgodnejših socialističnih besedil do najnovejših tvitov Bernieja Sandersa navajajo svoj argument proti ZDA in Zahodu s predvidevanjem izmišljenih utopij prihodnosti. Toda intersekcijska revizionistična zgodovina ne gleda več v namišljeno prihodnost, ampak v preteklost. Kot večina zgodovinskih poražencev fantazira o povrnitvi izgubljenega sveta, ki nikoli ni obstajal. Skromen predlog transspolne revizionistične zgodovine je, da bi večino človeške zgodovine ločili od korenin in jo ‘dekolonizirali’. In to zahteva pretvarjanje, da moški in ženske niso obstajali do 18. stoletja. In to zahteva obsojanje ´iznajdbe žensk´ kot zarote zahodnega kolonializma proti nezahodnim družbam.
Marksizem se je predstavljal kot progresiven, vendar so bile njegove družbe, ko so imele priložnost, vedno reakcionarne fevdalne diktature, meni Greenfield. Sodobni marksizem se je celo nehal pretvarjati, da je karkoli drugega kot reakcionaren, ki hrepeni po idealizirani rasni ali spolni preteklosti, ne pa prihodnosti. Tako kot islamisti, s katerimi je povezan, ne uničuje več zahodnega sveta, da bi zgradil boljšo prihodnost, ampak da bi ponovno izumil temno preteklost.
Vedno odlični portal Quillette je tokrat objavil esej profesorja in zgodovinarja iz Maylanda Jeffreya Herfa, ki je stopil v bran Jamesu Sweetu, predsedniku Ameriškega zgodovinskega združenja (AHA). Profesor zgodovine na Univerzi Wisconsin-Madison, ki je specializiran za preučevanje Afričanov v ZDA, je namreč sredi avgusta v reviji Perspektive, glasilu AHA, objavil kolumno z naslovom Je zgodovina zgodovina: identitetne politike in teologije sedanjosti. V njej je kritiziral »prebujeni« koncept preučevanja zgodovine in zapisal: »Če so zgodovina samo tiste zgodbe iz preteklosti, ki potrjujejo sedanja politična stališča, lahko vse vrste političnih posredovanj zahtevajo zgodovinsko strokovnost. To ni zgodovina; to je diletantizem.«
Sweet je bil deležen takih kritik in pritiskov, da je naknadno kolumno na spletu opremil s pojasnilom in opravičilom. »Upal sem, da bom začel pogovor o tem, kako ´delamo´ zgodovino v našem trenutnem politično obremenjenem okolju,« je zapisal.
Herf je na portalu Quillette menil, da Sweet ni zapisal nič takega, za kar bi se moral opravičevati: »Škodo zgodovinski stroki ni povzročil Sweetov izvirni esej, temveč njegovo opravičilo.« Kaj je zmotilo »prebujene« zgodovinarje?
Ena od njegovih »napak« je bila, da je opisal svoje potovanje v Afriko, kjer je naletel na zgodovinske napake glede trgovine s sužnji. V Elmini (za katero danes trdijo, da je bila glavna postojanka za trgovino s sužnji v ZDA) je naletel na stare zapise, po katerih so Afričani zavestno sodelovali pri trgovini s sužnji in imeli od tega koristi, čeprav sodobni zgodovinarji trdijo, da so Afričani svoje sonarodnjake »nevede« pošiljali v suženjstvo, saj so jih zlobni »beli ljudje« prevarali. Poleg tega je (po zapisih) samo en odstotek Afričanov iz gradu Elmina odšlo kot sužnjem v Severno Ameriko, saj je velika večina odšla v Brazilijo in na Karibe. Skratka, James Sweet je naredil natanko to, kar mora storiti zgodovinar. Rezultate dolgoletnega preučevanja je primerjal na kraju zgodovinskega dogodka samega. In odkril, da se je sedanje zgodovinopisje o vlogi Elmine motilo.
Druga napaka je bila, da si je drznil napisati, da nekatere zgodovinarje (in no vinarje, ki so sodelovali pri Projektu 1619) sodobne politične strasti vodijo k temu, da na preteklost gledajo skozi oči sedanjih interesov.
»Če preteklosti ne beremo skozi prizmo sodobnih vprašanj družbene pravičnosti (rase, spola, spolnosti, nacionalizma, kapitalizma), ali delamo zgodovino, ki je pomembna? Ta nova zgodovina pogosto ignorira vrednote in običaje ljudi v njihovem času, pa tudi spremembe skozi čas, nevtralizira strokovnost, ki ločuje zgodovinarje od tistih v drugih disciplinah. Privlačnost politične relevantnosti, ki jo spodbujajo družbeni in drugi mediji, spodbuja predvidljivo enakost sedanjosti in preteklosti. Ta istost je nezgodovinska; to je predlog, ki bi bil lahko sprejemljiv, če bi ustvaril pozitivne politične rezultate. Ampak ne gre,« je zapisal Sweet in s prstom pokazal na kolege zgodovinarje, ki so se zavezali k iskanju dokazov, ki lahko potrdijo ali ne potrdijo njihova lastna politična stališča. V Sloveniji je takih, kolikor hočeš: od tistih, ki na vse kriplje iščejo dokaze in zagovarjajo tezo, da smo Slovenci južnoslovanski narod, ki je prišel izza Krpatov, so tistih, ki še danes trdijo, da komunisti med drugo svetovno niso šli socialistične revolucije. »To ni zgodovina; to je diletantizem,« bi rekel Sweet.
In morali so priti Jože Možina, Rado Pezdir, Jože Dežman in Igor Omerza, da so (z odkritimi novimi dokumentiranimi dokazi) obelodanili medvojno in povojno resnico. Nekateri od teh sploh niso zgodovinarji, a njihov pristop temelji na znanstvenih metodah. Za razliko od političnih šarlatanov, ki se kitijo z znanstvenimi in akademskimi naslovi ter jih zanima samo to, ali njihovo preučevanje zgodovine škodi določeni politični opciji.
Herf, ki je obžaloval, da se je Sweet opravičil za odkrito resnico, je na koncu zapisal: »Poklicno samospoštovanje ter avtonomija in svoboda znanstvenega dela zahtevajo, da zgodovinarji odločno zavračamo in se ne pomirjamo s tistimi v naših vrstah, ki želijo znanstvenost nadomestiti s politiko.«
Belgija, Bruselj.
Vrh EU.
Prihodi voditeljev.
Madzarski premier Viktor Orban.
Govor, ki ga je preteklo soboto na Poletni svobodni univerzi in študentskem taboru Balvanyos v romunskem zdraviliškem mestu Baile Tusnad v Romuniji imel madžarski premier Viktor Orban, še vedno odmeva.
Medijski mainstream je govor označil za »nacistični izpad«, brali smo lahko le povzetke, ki so jih svetu sporočale levičarske tiskovne agencije in globalno najbolj vplivni mediji.
Spodaj je Orbanov celoten govor, da si bo lahko vsakdo ustvaril svoje mnenje. Ker je lahko razumljiv in se mi ga ne da prevajati (je zelo dolg), objavljam transkript v angleščini (vir: kabinet predsednika vlade Republike Madžarske).
»Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am very happy to see you. Zsolt Németh asked me to come here this morning with the warning that I should speak for exactly half as long as I want to. In Hungarian, the word “half” is a good one. The Pope was once asked how many people work in the Vatican; his reply was “Half of them!” Well, I will try to be clear and concise in what I have to say. It will not be easy to listen to this all the way through, because I have a lot to say, and I can see that it will be hot; but a healthy lamb can live with its coat of wool. And after all, the last time we met was in 2019, so three years ago. It is good to be free again, to be able to sit out on a terrace with friends and drink a fröccs [spritzer]. We have every reason to drink a Fidesz fröccs: two-thirds to one-third. This also shows that some things are eternal.
The world has changed a great deal since the last time we met. In 2019 we were part of a very optimistic and hopeful camp, but the decade that has now opened up before us is clearly going to be a decade of dangers, of uncertainty and wars – as is well illustrated by the scenes here. [Responding to a brief disturbance in the audience] Be just as polite as the Budapest police were with the junkies on the bridges [during a recent protest]. So we have entered an age of dangers, and the pillars of Western civilisation, once thought unshakable, are cracking. I will mention three such tremors causing those cracks. We used to think we were living under the protective canopy of science, but then we were hit by a certain COVID. We thought that there could never be war in Europe again, but now there is a war in a country neighbouring Hungary. And we thought that the Cold War could never return, but now many world leaders are working on reorganising our lives into a world of power blocs.
Since these are developments that I did not mention at all in 2019, this teaches us to be modest, as there are strict limits on our predictive abilities. In 2019 I did not talk about a pandemic, nor about a European war, another two-thirds victory [for Fidesz-KDNP] nor the return of the Left in Germany. Nor did I say that we would beat England here, and then over there 4-0. So if you are looking into the future, the most important advice is modesty and humility: you cannot supplant the Lord of History. It is in this spirit that I ask you to consider what I am about to say. I will start from far away before arriving here in Szeklerland.
Dear Friends,
When one observes the world, what is most striking is that the data suggests that it is an increasingly better place; and yet we feel the opposite to be true. Life expectancy has reached seventy years of age, and in Europe it is eighty. In the past thirty years child mortality has fallen by a third. In 1950 the world malnutrition level stood at 50 per cent, while now it is at 15 per cent. In 1950 the proportion of the world’s population living in poverty was 70 per cent, and in 2020 it was only 15 per cent. Across the world, the literacy rate has risen to 90 per cent. In 1950 the average working week was 52 hours long, but this has fallen to 40 hours per week today, with leisure time increasing from 30 hours to 40 hours. I could continue the list at length. And yet the general feeling is that the world is steadily deteriorating. The news, the tone of the news, is getting ever darker. And there is a kind of doomsday view of the future that is growing in strength. The question is this: Is it possible that millions of people simply misunderstand what is happening to them? My answer to this phenomenon is that this winter of our discontent is a fundamentally Western attitude to life, which stems from the fact that Western civilisation is losing its power, its performance, its authority, its capacity to act. This is an argument that the západniks – that is to say, the natural born Westernisers – tend to sneer at: they say that it is boring, that Spengler wrote that the West was in decline yet it is still here, and that whenever we can we send our children to universities in the West, not the East. “So there is no great problem here.” But the reality is that a hundred years ago, when there was talk of the decline of the West, they were referring to spiritual and demographic decline. What we are seeing today, however, is the decline of the Western world’s power and material resources. I need to say a few words about this to enable us to accurately understand the situation we are in.
It is important that we understand that other civilisations – the Chinese, the Indian, let’s say the Orthodox world, and even Islam – have also undergone a process of modernisation. And we see that rival civilisations have adopted Western technology and have mastered the Western financial system, but they have not adopted Western values – and they have absolutely no intention of adopting them. Nevertheless, the West wants to spread its own values, which is something that the rest of the world feels to be humiliating. This is something which we understand, as sometimes we also feel the same way. I recall an episode in the life of our Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, some time around 2014, under a previous US administration. A visiting US government official casually pushed a sheet of paper in front of him and simply said that the Hungarian Constitution should be amended on the points it contained, after which friendship would be restored. So we understand this resistance from the rest of the world to the West’s propagation of values, to its export of democracy. In fact I suspect that the rest of the world has realised that it needs to modernise precisely because it is the only way to resist the export of Western values that are alien to it. The most painful thing about this loss of territory, this loss of power and material territory, is that we in the West have lost control over energy carriers. In 1900 [corrected from “1990”] the United States and Europe controlled 90 per cent of all oil, natural gas and coal supplies. By 1950 this figure had dropped to 75 per cent, and today the situation is as follows: the US and Europe together control 35 per cent, with the US controlling 25 per cent, while we control 10 per cent; the Russians control 20 per cent; and the Middle East controls 30 per cent. And the situation is the same with raw materials. In the early 1900s the US, the British and the Germans held a considerable proportion of the raw materials needed for modern industry. After the Second World War the Soviets stepped in; and today we see that these raw materials are held by Australia, Brazil and China – with 50 per cent of Africa’s total raw material exports going to China. But looking to the future, what we see does not look very good either. In 1980 the US and the Soviet Union dominated the supply of most of the rare earths that are the basic materials for industries built on modern technology. Today the Chinese are producing five times more than the US and sixty times more than the Russians. This means that the West is losing the battle for materials. If we want to understand the state of the world, if we want to understand the state of the Westerner in the world, our starting point must be that much of the world’s energy carriers and energy resources lie outside Western civilisation. These are the hard facts.
Within this our situation – Europe’s situation – is doubly difficult. This is the reason that the United States has the strategy that it has. The year 2013 is one that has not been noted or written down anywhere by anyone. But this was the year in which the Americans launched new technologies for extracting raw materials and energy – for simplicity’s sake, let us call it the fracking method of energy extraction. They immediately announced a new US security policy doctrine. I quote from it, it runs as follows. This new technology, they said, would put them in a stronger position to pursue and achieve their international security objectives. In other words, America made no secret of the fact that it would use energy as a foreign policy weapon. The fact that others are being accused of this should not deceive us. It follows from this that the Americans are pursuing a bolder sanctions policy, as we are seeing in the shadow of the current Russo-Ukrainian war; and they have set about strongly encouraging their allies – in other words us – to buy supplies from them. And it is working: the Americans are able to impose their will because they are not dependent on energy from others; they are able to exert hostile pressure because they control the financial networks – let’s call them swift for simplicity – for sanctions policy; and they are also able to exert friendly pressure, meaning that they can persuade their allies to buy from them. A weaker version of this policy was seen when President Trump first visited Poland, when he just talked about the need for them to buy “freedom gas”. This US strategy has only now, in 2022, been complemented with the sanctions policy. This is where we are now, and it would not surprise me if uranium, nuclear energy, were soon to be included in this sphere. The Europeans responded to this, we Europeans responded to this, as we did not want to make ourselves dependent on the Americans. It is not nice, but among themselves European politicians say, “We’ve caught a Yank, but he won’t let go of us.” They did not really want to maintain this state of affairs, and so they tried to protect the Russo-German energy axis for as long as possible, so that we could bring Russian energy into Europe. This is now being torn apart by international politics. Then, led by the Germans, we gave another answer: the switch to renewable energy sources. So far this has not worked, however, because the technology is expensive, and therefore so is the energy derived from it. In addition, the switch to this modern technology is not happening automatically, but only under pressure from above, which is exerted on the Member States by the Commission in Brussels – even though this seriously harms the interests of Member States.
In passing, I will say a few words about European values. Here, for example, is the latest proposal from the European Commission, which says that everyone must reduce their natural gas consumption by 15 per cent. I do not see how it will be enforced – although, as I understand it, the past shows us German know-how on that. Furthermore, if this does not produce the desired effect and someone does not have enough gas, it will be taken away from those who do have it. So what the European Commission is doing is not asking the Germans to reverse the shutdown of their last two or three nuclear power plants still in operation, which enable them to produce cheap energy: it is letting them close those power plants down. And if they run out of energy, in some way they will take gas from us who have it, because we have stored it up. We Hungarians call this an “Einstand” [forcible confiscation by a stronger party], which is something we learned from “The Paul Street Boys” [the novel A Pál utcai fiúk]. This is what we can prepare ourselves for.
To sum up, Ladies and Gentlemen,
What I want to say is that the West’s negative feelings about the world are due to the fact that the crucial energy and raw materials needed for economic development are no longer in the West’s hands. What it does possess is military power and capital. The question is what it can achieve with this in the present circumstances.
Following this, allow me to say something about us Hungarians. What questions must Hungary and the Hungarian nation answer today, how and in what order must we answer them? These questions are like the layers of a dobostorta [Hungarian layered sponge cake], stacked on top of each other: the most important at the bottom, the lighter and tastier morsels on top. This is the order that I will follow now.
The first and most important challenge, Dear Friends, continues to be population, or demography. The fact is that there are still far more funerals than baptisms. Whether we like it or not, the peoples of the world can be divided into two groups: those that are capable of biologically maintaining their numbers; and those that are not, which is the group that we belong to. Our situation has improved, but there has not been a turnaround. This is the alpha and omega of everything: if there is no turnaround, sooner or later we will be displaced from Hungary, and we will be displaced from the Carpathian Basin.
The second challenge is migration, which you could call population replacement or inundation. There is an outstanding 1973 book on this issue which was written in French, and recently published in Hungary. It is called “The Camp of the Saints” [Le Camp des Saints], and I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the spiritual developments underlying the West’s inability to defend itself. Migration has split Europe in two – or I could say that it has split the West in two. One half is a world where European and non-European peoples live together. These countries are no longer nations: they are nothing more than a conglomeration of peoples. I could also say that it is no longer the Western world, but the post-Western world. And around 2050, the laws of mathematics will lead to the final demographic shift: cities in this part of the continent – or that part – will see the proportion of residents of non-European origin rising to over 50 per cent of the total. And here we are in Central Europe – in the other half of Europe, or of the West. If it were not somewhat confusing, I could say that the West – let’s say the West in its spiritual sense – has moved to Central Europe: the West is here, and what is left over there is merely the post-West. A battle is in progress between the two halves of Europe. We made an offer to the post-Westerners which was based on tolerance or leaving one another in peace, allowing each to decide for themselves whom they want to live alongside; but they reject this and are continuing to fight against Central Europe, with the goal of making us like them. I shall leave to one side the moral commentary they attach to this – after all, this is such a lovely morning. There is now less talk about migration, but, believe me, nothing has changed: Brussels, reinforced with Soros-affiliated troops, simply wants to force migrants on us. They have also taken us to court over the Hungarian border defence system, and they have delivered a verdict against us. For a number of reasons not much can be said about this now, but we have been pronounced guilty. If it were not for the Ukrainian refugee crisis they would have started to enforce this judgment on us, and how that situation plays out will be accompanied by a great deal of suspense. But now war has broken out and we are receiving arrivals from Ukraine, and so this issue has been put aside – they have not taken it off the agenda, but just put it to one side. It is important that we understand them. It is important that we understand that these good people over there in the West, in the post-West, cannot bear to wake up every morning and find that their days – and indeed their whole lives – are poisoned by the thought that all is lost. So we do not want to confront them with this day and night. All we ask is that they do not try to impose on us a fate which we do not see as simply a fate for a nation, but as its nemesis. This is all we ask, and no more.
In such a multi-ethnic context, there is an ideological feint here that is worth talking about and focusing on. The internationalist left employs a feint, an ideological ruse: the claim – their claim – that Europe by its very nature is populated by peoples of mixed race. This is a historical and semantic sleight of hand, because it conflates two different things. There is a world in which European peoples are mixed together with those arriving from outside Europe. Now that is a mixed-race world. And there is our world, where people from within Europe mix with one another, move around, work, and relocate. So, for example, in the Carpathian Basin we are not mixed-race: we are simply a mixture of peoples living in our own European homeland. And, given a favourable alignment of stars and a following wind, these peoples merge together in a kind of Hungaro-Pannonian sauce, creating their own new European culture. This is why we have always fought: we are willing to mix with one another, but we do not want to become peoples of mixed-race. This is why we fought at Nándorfehérvár/Belgrade, this is why we stopped the Turks at Vienna, and – if I am not mistaken – this is why, in still older times – the French stopped the Arabs at Poitiers. Today the situation is that Islamic civilisation, which is constantly moving towards Europe, has realised – precisely because of the traditions of Belgrade/Nándorfehérvár – that the route through Hungary is an unsuitable one along which to send its people up into Europe. This is why Poitiers has been replayed; now the incursion’s origins are not in the East, but in the South, from where they are occupying and flooding the West. This might not yet be a very important task for us, but it will be for our children, who will need to defend themselves not only from the South, but also from the West. The time will come when we have to somehow accept Christians coming to us from there and integrate them into our lives. This has happened before; and those whom we do not want to let in will have to be stopped at our western borders – Schengen or no Schengen. But this is not the task of the moment, and not a task for our lifetime. Our task is solely to prepare our children to be able to do this. As [House Speaker] László Kövér has said in an interview, we must make sure that good times do not create weak men, and that those weak men do not bring hard times upon our people.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Demography, migration, and the next layer is gender – and what we call the Child Protection Act. There is less talk of this now because other things are occupying the front pages of the newspapers, but let us not forget that on this issue, too, we have been taken to court – and we await the verdict. The only result we have achieved here is partly – or perhaps entirely – thanks to Minister Judit Varga. We have managed to separate our big debate on the whole gender issue from the debate on EU money, and the two are now moving forward on separate tracks. Here too, our position is simple. We are asking for another offer of tolerance: we do not want to tell them how they should live; we are just asking them to accept that in our country a father is a man and a mother is a woman, and that they leave our children alone. And we ask them to see to it that George Soros’s army also accepts this. It is important for people in the West to understand that in Hungary and in this part of the world this is not an ideological question, but quite simply the most important question in life. In this corner of the world there will never be a majority in favour of the Western lunacy – my apologies to everyone – that is being played out over there. Quite simply, Hungarians – or the sons of some other peoples – cannot get their heads around this. There are all these gender things: transnational and transgender; but the furthest we can go with that is to say “Transylvania” – although in Hungarian that is called “Erdély”. We cannot go any further than that. So I ask you not to be misled, not to be deceived: there is a war, an energy crisis, an economic crisis and wartime inflation, and all of this is drawing a screen in front of our eyes, a screen between us and the issue of gender and migration. But in fact it is on these issues that the future will be decided. This is the great historic battle that we are fighting: demography, migration and gender. And this is precisely what is at stake in the battle between the Left and the Right. I will not mention the name of a friendly country, but just refer to it. There is a country where the Left has won, and where one of its first measures has been to dismantle its border fence; and the second measure has been to recognise every “gender rule” – not only same-sex marriage, but also such couples’ right to adopt children. Let us not be fooled by current conflicts: these are the issues which will decide our future.
How can we protect ourselves? First, by being determined. Then by looking for allies. This is what has given the V4 its importance. So what has recently given the Visegrád Four its great importance is that on these issues we have been able to speak with one voice. Indeed it is no accident that the post-Westerners did their best to dismantle the Visegrád Four. In addition, war has intervened, and this has shaken the Polish-Hungarian cooperation that has been the axis of V4 cooperation. As regards the war, the Poles and the Hungarians have the same strategic interest: they do not want the Russians to come any closer, they want Ukraine’s sovereignty to be preserved, and they want Ukraine to be a democracy. We both want exactly the same things, and yet this war is making relations with our friends difficult. This is because when it comes to matters of the head, the interests that I have talked about are clearly aligned; but the problem is matters of the heart. The problem in Hungarian-Polish relations is one of the heart. We Hungarians see this war as a war between two Slavic peoples, and as one which we want to stay out of. But the Poles see it as a war in which they are also involved: it is their war, and they are almost fighting it. And since this is a matter of the heart, we cannot come to an agreement with each other on it, but must use our intellect to salvage everything we can from the Polish-Hungarian friendship and strategic alliance for the post-war period. Of course we still have our Slovak and Czech friends, but there have been changes of government in those countries, where they currently prefer the post-Western world, and they do not want to engage in conflicts with Brussels – from which they are receiving good grades. In my opinion this is like tying up their horses in a burning stable. Good luck with that!
After these the fourth question is the question of war. Every war can be looked at from many perspectives, but the primary aspect of every war is the fact that mothers will mourn their children and children will lose their parents. This consideration should override all others – even in the sphere of politics. For the Hungarian government, this means that our primary duty is to ensure that Hungarian parents and Hungarian children do not find themselves in such a situation. Here I can mention that there are countries that criticise us because they think that we are not sufficiently committed to the Ukrainians. But those countries are far away, and at most are providing support in terms of money or weapons; meanwhile today we Hungarians are the only ones, apart from the Ukrainians, who are dying in that war. According to our records, to date eighty-six Hungarians have lost their lives in that war. This is a completely different perspective. We Hungarians have been the only ones who have shed blood in that war, while those who criticise us have not shed any. This is why, as a neighbouring country, Hungary has the right to say that peace is the only solution that will save human lives, and the only antidote to wartime inflation and a wartime economic crisis.
How will we think about this war in the future? We will maintain our view that this is not our war. Hungary is a NATO member and our starting point is that NATO is much stronger than Russia, and so Russia will never attack NATO. The statement that Russia will not stop at Ukraine is a weak – but understandable – propaganda talking point used by Ukraine. I understand it, because their aim is to involve us, to involve as many countries as possible on their side in this war; but it lacks any basis in reality. At the same time, since we are members of NATO and we want to stay out of this war, our situation has become a delicate one. This is because NATO and the European Union have decided that, although they will not become belligerents, they will nevertheless supply arms and impose severe economic sanctions; and whether one likes it or not, this means that they are de facto – not de jure, but de facto – parties to this conflict. Now we are in the dangerous position of having to somehow help the Ukrainians while also being a de facto party to the conflict, yet at the same time ensuring that the authorities in Moscow do not see this as a situation in which we – NATO and the European Union – have become formal belligerents. This is the position on which the European Union and NATO are balancing every day, while taking on huge risks.
Since one can read a lot about the war, if I still have your attention, I would like to say a few words about how this war came about and what the reasons for it were. Of course everyone knows that Russia attacked Ukraine. That is what happened. Now let us look at the reason for that. Let us also note the problem that once you understand something, you are only a step away from accepting it. But it is very important to make a moral distinction between understanding something and accepting something. What this means in concrete terms is that it is important to understand why the Russians did what they did; but it does not follow from this that if you understand what they did, you accept what they did. The Russians have made a very clear security demand, and have even written it down in a way that is rare in diplomacy, sending it to the Americans and NATO. They have written their demand that Ukraine should never be a member of NATO, that Ukraine declares this, that NATO itself assures Russia of this, and that we undertake to never place weapons on the territory of Ukraine that could hit Russian territory. The West has rejected this offer and has refused to negotiate on it. They have said that NATO has an “open door policy”: the door is open, anyone can apply and we will decide whether or not we want to take them in. And the consequence of this refusal is that today the Russians are seeking to achieve by force of arms the security demands that they had previously sought to achieve through negotiation. I have to say that this war would never have broken out if we had been a little luckier and at this crucial hour the President of the United States of America was called Donald Trump, and if before that we had managed to persuade Angela Merkel not to leave office: if Donald Trump had been the President of the USA and Angela Merkel the Chancellor of Germany. But we were not lucky, and so now we are in this war.
Western strategy in this war is based on four pillars. It is a sensible strategy on paper, and perhaps even has numbers to back it up. The first was that Ukraine cannot win a war against Russia on its own, but it can do so with training from the Anglo-Saxons and with NATO weapons. That was the first claim. The second strategic claim was that sanctions would weaken Russia and destabilise the leadership in Moscow. The third strategic element was that – although they would also affect us – we would be able to deal with the economic consequences of the sanctions, so that they would be hurt more and we would be hurt less. And the fourth strategic consideration was that the world would line up behind us, because we were in the right. As a result of this excellent strategy, however, today the situation is that we are sitting in a car with four flat tyres. It is absolutely clear that the war cannot be won like this. The Ukrainians will never win a war against Russia with American training and weapons. This is simply because the Russian army has asymmetric superiority. The second fact that we must face up to is that the sanctions are not destabilising Moscow. The third is that Europe is in trouble: economic trouble, but also political trouble, with governments falling like dominoes. Just since the outbreak of the war, the British, the Italian, the Bulgarian and the Estonian governments have fallen. And autumn is still ahead of us. The big price rise came in June, when energy prices doubled. The effects of this on people’s lives, which are creating discontent, are only just beginning to arrive, and we have already lost four governments. And finally, the world is not only not with us, it is demonstrably not with us. Historically the Americans have had the ability to pick out what they identify as an evil empire and to call on the world to stand on the right side of history – a phrase which bothers us a little, as this is what the communists always said. This ability that the Americans used to have of getting everyone on the right side of the world and of history, and then the world obeying them, is something which has now disappeared. Most of the world is demonstrably not on that side: not the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, South Africa, the Arab world, nor Africa. A large part of the world simply refuses to take part in this war, not because they believe that the West is on the wrong side, but because for them there is more to the world than this war, and they have their own problems that they are wrestling with and want to solve. It may well be that this war will be the one that demonstrably puts an end to that form of Western ascendancy which has been able to employ various means to create world unity against certain actors on a particular chosen issue. That era is coming to an end and, as they say in the bombastic language of politics, a multipolar world order is now knocking on our door.
And if we are talking about war, I can use an appropriate style to pose one important question: Chto delat? [Russian for “What is to be done?”] There is the problem that, compared to the others, Hungary’s army does not seem to be very big. There is the problem that, compared with the GDP of, say, the big European countries and the US, Hungary’s GDP also looks modest. So we may have a clear view of the situation, we may have excellent insights concerning the war, we may have a clear vision, we may have a strategic proposal; but you know that when it comes to the war all this matters very little, because the war is a prelude. It is the word of the strong that will be decisive. Hungary should not cherish the illusion that with our excellent advice we will be able to influence the events of the war and the strategy of the West. Nevertheless, in any debate I consider it a matter of honour and a moral principle that we must try to state our position and try to persuade the West to develop a new strategy to replace empty reports of victory. If your car has four flat tyres, you have to change the wheels – all four of them. A new strategy is needed; and its focus – the target in its crosshairs – should not be on winning the war, but on negotiating peace and making a good peace offer. Speaking figuratively, I have to say that now the task of the European Union is not to stand alongside either the Russians or the Ukrainians, but to stand between Russia and Ukraine. This should be the essence of a new strategy.
What will happen? The Russians are speaking an old language. So when we listen to them, it is as if we are hearing the sounds of the past: the system of gestures, the categories, the words. When I listen to Mr. Lavrov, it is like what we heard thirty or forty years ago. But this does not mean that what they are saying does not make sense: it does make sense, and it is worth taking seriously. Two days ago, for example, a Russian official said that they will push forward in Ukraine until the front line is so far advanced that from there the weapons possessed by the Ukrainians will not be able to hit Russian territory. In other words, the more that NATO countries supply modern weapons to the Ukrainians, the further forward the Russians will push the front line. This is because they are a military nation that thinks only in terms of security and is only interested in ensuring that it is not attacked from Ukrainian territory. So at the moment what we are doing is prolonging the war, whether we want to or not. This means that there will be no Russo-Ukrainian peace talks. This is an idea that we should get used to. Anyone expecting such talks will be waiting in vain. Since Russia wants security guarantees, the war can only be brought to an end with Russo-American negotiations. There will be no peace until there are Russo-American talks. I could counter this by saying, “But look at us Europeans here”. But unfortunately, my friends, I have to say that we Europeans have squandered our chance to influence events. We squandered it after 2014, when we left the Americans out of the first Minsk agreement created during the Crimean conflict, and instead formulated a Minsk agreement with a Franco-German guarantee. Thus should have been implemented, but unfortunately we Europeans – or the Germans and the French who represented us – were unable to enforce it. This is why now the Russians do not want to negotiate with us, but with those who can force Ukraine to do what it agreed to. So the situation is like the one after the Second World War: Europe once again finds itself in a situation in which it will not have a say in its most important security issue, which will once again be decided by the Americans and the Russians.
At this point I would like to make another comment, because from this perspective we can see the danger posed by the European Union’s proposal to change the system of foreign policy decision-making for the Member States. Under the current system all foreign policy decisions can only be made unanimously, but the proposal is to change this so that it will be possible to create common European foreign policy with a simple majority vote. Hungary’s historical experience tells us that if a country is forced to adopt a foreign policy that it does not want, even if that policy needs to gain two-thirds of the votes in the EU, then quite simply the name for this is imperialism. And the argument that only in this way can Europe become a world political player is, once again, a sleight of hand. The reason that Europe cannot become a world political player is that it cannot keep its own house in order, it cannot keep order in its own backyard. The best example of this is the Russo-Ukrainian war. This should be resolved, but I can give you other examples. Minsk should have been enforced. The Croats are being cheated in Bosnia. This is a complicated issue, but I would just like you to know that the Croats who live in Bosnia and who have the legal right to elect their leader are being cheated by the Bosniaks, and the latter are in fact using loopholes in the electoral law to elect Croats. The Croats speak out on this matter at every European Council meeting, and we Hungarians support them with all the means at our disposal, but the EU is incapable of solving this problem. Or there is the problem of defending our borders. The aim should not be to become a world political player. It should be enough for our ambition to be that the EU is able to defend its own borders; but it cannot, and poor Salvini – who tried to do so – is being taken to court, and there are those who want to imprison him. Or there is EU enlargement in the Balkans: Greece is a member of the EU, Hungary is a member of the EU, but between us there is a big black hole, the Balkans. For geopolitical and economic reasons the EU should be bringing others into its own world, but it is unable to do so. So Europe should not be aspiring to a role in world politics, but should be setting and achieving the modest goal of being able to settle foreign policy issues arising in its own backyard.
Demography, migration, gender, war. The fifth set of challenges we face relates to energy and the economy. This is a complex issue. The best thing to do is to go back to square one, as one does after a dance step has gone wrong, and start again in an attempt to understand the situation. One must ask the simplest questions. Here the simplest question is this: Who benefits from this war? The answer is that the party that benefits is the one which has its own sources of energy. The Russians are doing well. We have miscalculated, thinking that if we do not buy energy from the Russians they will have less revenue. This is a mistake, because revenue is determined not only by the quantity sold, but also by the unit price. And the situation today is that the Russians are selling less energy, but they have much higher revenue. So the Russians are doing well. European Union imports from Russia have fallen by 23 per cent, but in the same period Gazprom’s revenues have doubled. The Chinese have done well. In terms of energy the Chinese used to be at the mercy of the Arabs, getting all their energy from that area of the world. But now that we are not buying from the Russians, we have effectively shifted Russian energy towards China, and China has thus eliminated its energy dependence. And, of course, large American companies are benefiting. I have compiled this list: in 2022 Exxon’s profits doubled, Chevron’s quadrupled, and those of ConocoPhillips increased sixfold. We know who is doing well economically. Who is doing badly? The European Union is doing badly, because its energy deficit – the difference between its exports and imports, or their value – has tripled, and it is now showing a shortfall of 189 billion euros.
How does this affect us? The most important issue, or set of issues, is what we call the reductions in household utility bills. What is the future of these reductions in Hungary? Yesterday I listened to the head of the RMDSZ [Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania], and I learned how this is being done here in Romania – how they are trying to help people to survive in the face of such energy prices. In Hungary we are doing it differently. In Hungary we introduced a system at the beginning of the 2010s, which I think is a huge political achievement and a very important social policy achievement. In 2010 it was already clear that the price of energy as calculated on a market basis was very high compared to families’ incomes, and therefore a large proportion of their earned income was being consumed by essential costs, by utility charges. So we introduced a system in which we guaranteed everyone natural gas, electricity and district heating at a set price, regardless of what energy cost on the market. The market price was higher than the fixed price, and the difference was paid by the Government from the central budget. This was the Hungarian system, and it worked well for ten years. The problem now is that the war has disrupted this system, because now we are seeing wartime energy prices. The task is to somehow defend the reduction in energy charges. I now see that we will succeed in this, in the sense that everyone will continue to be charged the earlier price up to the average level of consumption. This is not the case in Romania. In Hungary, everyone will continue to pay the earlier reduced price up to the average consumption level, but if they consume more than that they will have to pay a market price – the level of which we have just made public. If we succeed in retaining this and thus protecting it, we will also be able to claim it as a huge political achievement and a social policy success. To give you an idea of the scale of this, I can outline what has changed. If I look at the year 2021, I can say that the amount that the Hungarian state paid out – because household utility charges were pegged at a level lower than the market price – was 296 billion forints, all told. In 2022, if the current fixed prices were retained until the end of the year, we would not be paying out 296 billion forints, but 2,051 billion forints. This would be seven times the previous amount, which is something that the Hungarian economy would quite simply be unable to bear. This has to be resolved. That is why we have decided to protect the price up to the average consumption level, but above that a market price will apply. This is also why we have rescheduled every type of non-energy investment. Those which have not yet been started will not start, while those which have been started as public investments will be completed, because nothing can be left in an unfinished state. Here, beyond the border, we will complete everything. Here and at home we will guarantee money for what needs to be continued, but we cannot launch new investments, because neither here nor at home can I guarantee in any way the completion of anything that we launch now. That would be irresponsible. So we have to wait.
And finally, there is one more task: we must withdraw from natural gas. Electricity represents a much smaller burden for Hungary, because we have a nuclear power station and solar energy. If we can shift consumption from gas to other sources, such as electricity or biomass – the modern term for wood – then the burden that is weighing us down will be reduced. This is a feasible and achievable task under the current budget plans.
In the economic field the next problem we face is recession. This is an elegant way of signalling that the economy’s performance next year will be less than in the preceding year. The whole of Europe is in the grip of recession. In Hungary this is compounded by the fact that, since we use the forint, when the dollar-euro exchange rate changes, that is to say when the dollar strengthens, this automatically leads to an immediate weakening of the forint. And when we are in a period when the dollar is constantly strengthening against the euro, or at least maintaining the high level it has reached, this automatically leads to a weakening of the forint. There is also the question of whether next year the economy will perform worse than it did this year. And in the budget which has been adopted the forecast is that this will not be the case, but that we will grow. The problem is that, in the meantime, everywhere in Europe – or at least in most European countries – there is certain to be a downturn, and this will cause political instability. The ancient Greeks said that the world exists in two states: sometimes the world is in an orderly state known as cosmos, and at other times it is in a state of disorder, or chaos. And the latter is the direction in which the European economy is now heading. The dilemma that we Hungarians have to face – and we have to find the key to solving it – is this: In a global recession, is it possible for there to be a local exception? And our goal for the next two years is to make Hungary a local exception in a global crisis. An ambitious goal!
This also means that, even though having just won an election we would like to see the four years ahead of us as a single unit, this is not possible; this is because the four years ahead of us will comprise two periods of two years each. There will be the first two years, between 2022 and 2024. In 2024 there will be a presidential election in America, and that is when I think the first really serious prospect of peace will come. And then there will be the two years from 2024 to 2026. We need a plan for the first two years and a different plan for the second two years. Can Hungary be made a local exception? This can be done, and here the key term is “staying out”. So in economic terms Hungary will only succeed in maintaining its success if we stay out of the war, if we stay out of migration, if we stay out of gender lunacy, if we stay out of the global tax – I will not go into that at length for lack of time, but they want to impose it on us – and if we stay out of the general recession in Europe.
The good news is that we did this in 2010. It is good news that we also did it in 2020, during the COVID pandemic. We have come out of every crisis stronger than we went in. What happened in 2020 is that we overtook on the bend: during the crisis we overtook Greece and Portugal in terms of economic output per capita. The problem is that while we were overtaking on the bend, we ran into a nice shower of freezing rain, and now we need to somehow keep our car on the track.
I think that in order to succeed it is important for us to be able to reach new agreements with all the key players adapted to the new situation – not only in political terms, but also economically. A new agreement must be concluded with the European Union. These financial negotiations are underway, and we will reach an agreement. Now we are going towards the precipice together, holding hands, but we will stop, turn to each other, hug and reach an agreement. A new agreement must be reached with the Russians. Hungary needs to make a new agreement with the Russians; Hungary needs to make a new agreement with the Chinese; and then we also need to make a new agreement with the United States – it may be easier with the Republicans than with the current Democrats. And if we can manage to do that, if we can reach an agreement with everyone as demanded by our national interests, then in 2024 we can get back on the old track of growth and development.
Finally, I need to say that while we are juggling with dates, let us not forget that we are actually working towards 2030. I have talked about many things, and right now Hungarian governance reminds me of Chinese circus performers who spin twenty plates at once while making sure that none of them fall off. In essence this is the task we have to tackle, but we must not lose sight of the fact that – in addition to spinning the plates – the most important horizon and time limit for our thinking is around 2030. Our analyses suggest that this is when the problems of the Western world will accumulate and multiply in terms of tension. There will be a very serious crisis in the United States. I have just recommended a French author, and I would also recommend to everyone a book by the American analyst George Friedman, also published in Hungarian, entitled “The Storm before the Calm”. In it he outlines the various challenges that the US will have to face, which will peak around 2030. But somehow within this timeframe we will also see the emergence of all the problems of the eurozone: the South and the North having diverging development paths, with the South in debt and the North having to finance it. This will create a tension that after a while will be unsustainable unless the South reforms itself along Northern lines. But they are not showing much inclination for a sudden change in culture, which is why public debt in the South is in the range of 120, 150 or 180 per cent. And then, around 2030, there will be a new power dynamic within the EU, because by that time the Central Europeans, we Central Europeans – who are treated in a way that I don’t need to elaborate on here – will be net contributors. So the moment will come when – because of our faster development, development that is faster than theirs – Hungary will not on balance be receiving money from the EU, but will be paying money into it. It will be paying in more than it gets. The Czechs are already very close to being in that position. If the Poles develop in the way we are already seeing, they will soon arrive at that point around 2030, and we will also be there somewhere around that time. This means that there will be new power dynamics: he who pays the piper calls the tune. This will also change our relations, and create a new situation for us within the European Union. In other words, Dear Friends, around the year 2030 we will have to be in top form. That is when we will need all our strength: diplomatic, economic, military and intellectual strength.
And finally, taking Zsolt’s advice, I will now just list the factors that will help Hungary in making us a local exception in a global recession.
The first is that we still have our border defence.
The second is that we have a family-based society, which is a factor that guarantees a great deal of energy and motivation.
Right now we are implementing major developments in our army and military industrial sector.
We are diversifying our energy sources. Incidentally, what the EU wants is not diversification. Diversification means that you are not vulnerable because you can source your energy from a variety of places. What they are doing is imposing sanctions, the purpose of which is preventing them getting it from a certain place. That is a completely different story. We do not want to stop getting energy from Russia, we simply want to stop getting it exclusively from Russia.
Our fifth opportunity is to take advantage of the technological shift. If we are fast enough, we can always win when technological changes occur. Here we have the example of electric cars. In Hungary we are making huge investments in batteries, and in no time we will be the world’s third largest battery producer – the third largest battery producer in absolute terms, not in percentage terms – and the world’s fifth largest exporter. So there are these niches that we can enter.
Foreign capital inflows: this is our sixth big opportunity. Capital is coming in from both the East and the West. In 2019 – or maybe 2020 – South Korea was already bringing in the most investment, followed by China the year after, and Korea again this year. Meanwhile German investment is ongoing: yesterday the construction of a new Mercedes factory was announced, which will be an investment of one billion euros. We are a transit country, and we want to remain a transit economy. At this point I must note that if the world separates into blocs and is once again split into East and West, we will not be a meeting point or a transit country. If power blocs emerge we will not be a meeting point, a gateway, a contact point combining the advantages of both the East and the West, but we will be on the edge of something, on the periphery. And then Hungary will not be a prosperous Hungary, but a dusty outpost garrison of the sort we read about in the work of [the comic novelist] Jenő Rejtő. We must therefore oppose the formation of any such blocs. This is the only way in which a transit country and a transit economy can be profitable.
Our next, eighth opportunity is based on political stability: we have a two-thirds majority. A government with a two-thirds majority cannot be toppled, and there are no coalition disputes, because we are not in a coalition. Perhaps you have paid less attention to this, but in fact in recent years on the national side we have also overseen a generational change. Let us leave aside the fact that now in the West people of my age are starting their political careers. It is different in Hungary, and I am moving towards the exit. We need to ensure that the generation following us will have leadership of the same national and emotional commitment that we have given to Hungary. This is why we have quietly implemented a generational change, the symbol of which is that a 44-year-old mother of three is our President of the Republic, in contrast to or alongside a Prime Minister like me, who will soon be in his sixties. And if you look at the Government, you see ministers in their forties – sometimes their early forties – who will be able to provide leadership for Hungary for twenty or thirty years. Of course generational change is never easy, because there is a difference between newcomers who kick over the traces and those who pull the cart. Those who kick over the traces should be given the chance to perform in a circus tent, while those who pull the cart should be involved in political decision-making.
The ninth key to a successful strategy of local exceptionalism is our intellectual and spiritual foundations. Hungary still has its national conception, its sphere of national sentiment, its culture, and a language capable of describing a complete Hungarian world.
And finally, the tenth factor that offers us a chance of success is what I call ambition. Hungary has ambition. Hungary has communal ambitions, and indeed national ambitions. It has national ambitions, and even European ambitions. This is why, in order to preserve our national ambitions, we must show solidarity in the difficult period ahead of us. The motherland must stand together, and Transylvania and the other areas in the Carpathian Basin inhabited by Hungarians must stand together. This ambition, Dear Friends, is what propels us, what drives us – it is our fuel. It is the notion that we have always given more to the world than we have received from it, that more has been taken from us than given to us, that we have submitted invoices that are still unpaid, that we are better, more industrious and more talented than the position we now find ourselves in and the way in which we live, and the fact that the world owes us something – and that we want to, and will, call in that debt. This is our strongest ambition.
Thank you for listening. Go Hungary, go Hungarians!«
Pisatelj Prežihov Voranc v zgodbi ´Boj na požiralniku´ opisuje Dihurjeve, ki kmetujejo na težavni zemlji. Pridelek jim včasih uniči suša, drugič pretirano deževje, požiralniki odnašajo zemljo. Novela je bila napisana pred skoraj 100 leti, ko aktivisti za vremenske neprilike še niso krivili človeka in uporabo fosilnih goriv. Danes bi bilo drugače. Za vreme, nenaklonjeno kmetovanju, bi bilo krivo globalno segrevanje, smrt mladega Dihurja na požiralniku bi pripisali podnebnim sprememb.
Za poletne mesece je značilna vročina. Pravo presenečenje, mar ne? Kako neki je to mogoče? Informacije medijskega mainstreama so šokantne: širijo se požari, tolče toča, neurja so uničujoča, ljudje umirajo, nastaja gospodarska škoda. Krivec je tako ali tako znan, je en sam – človek, ki uporablja fosilna goriva. In če ne bomo zdaj prenehali z njihovo uporabo, se bo jutri planet scvrl.
Nedavno sta ameriška profesorja zapisala, da znanost dokazuje, da fosilna goriva ne povzročajo tveganja v zvezi s podnebjem, da ne povzročajo podnebnih izrednih razmer. To je jasno vsakemu zdravorazumskemu človeku, le kvazi znanstvenikom, ekoteroristom, podnebnim aktivistom in politično korektnim medijem nikakor ne. Ali pač. Kar je razumljivo, saj ne živijo samo od poročanja o katastrofah, ampak tudi od napovedovanja prihodnosti. Danes je gledanje v čarobno apokaliptično kroglo ena najbolj donosnih »gospodarskih« panog, kjer se na leto obrne vsaj 100 milijard evrov. Kolumnist revije Forbes Larry Bell je celo zapisal, da raziskave o podnebnih spremembah in vsa histerija okoli tega samo ameriški ekonomiji vsako leto povzroči za 1,75 bilijona (1.750 milijard) dolarjev škode.
Naravne katastrofe, celo hujše kot danes, so se dogajale ves čas zgodovine Zemlje in zgodovine človeka. Da se zdi, da je v sodobnem času več požarov, vročih poletij, ekstremnim pojavov in vsega drugega, kar lahko bolni um pripiše globalnemu segrevanju, je ´kriv´ pretok informacij. Do časa, ko je Gutenberg izumil tiskarski stroj (vsaj zame največji izum v zgodovini človeštva), so se vesti in znanje širili počasi, potem pa vse hitreje. Če je nekoč informacija o neki naravni katastrofi lahko do ljudi prišla šele po letu dni in več (če je do njih sploh prišla), danes (prek spleta) pride v realnem času. Razlika med Gutenbergovim tiskarskim strojem in današnjim internetom je samo ena: v hitrosti širjenja informacij in količini informacij, ki pride do ljudi. Če so včasih vedeli samo za največje katastrofe, danes v sekundi izvemo o požaru (ali nevihti) na najbolj oddaljenem kotičku Zemlje. Tudi zato se zdi, da je naravnih katastrof več, kot jih je bilo nekoč. Pa jih ni. Dokaj enakomerno so razporejene skozi zgodovino planeta, največje so se zgodile v preteklosti, nikakor ne v sedanjosti.
1540
Leta 1540 sta Evropo zajela vročinski val in suša, ki sta trajala kar 11 mesecev. Temperature so presegale 40 stopinj Celzija, tisto leto še danes velja za najbolj vroče na stari celini. Rene Orth in drugi so ugotovili, da so tedanje temperature za 20 odstotkov presegale tiste iz leta 2003, za katerega medijski mainstream trdi, da so bile v povprečju najvišje v zgodovini človeštva.
1757
Leta 1757 je Evropo zajel največji vročinski val v zadnjih 500 letih (po letu 1540). Res je, leta 2003 je bilo v povprečju še za odtenek bolj vroče, toda soditi po valu pred 20 leti, da se Zemlja segreva in pregreva, ni znanost, ampak šarlatanstvo. Za najbolj vroče poletje še vedno velja leto 1540.
1896
Severno Ameriko je zajel rekorden vročinski val, umrlo je 1.500 ljudi.
1900
Zgodovinski vročinski val v središču Argentine, največji v zgodovini Južne Amerike. Val je postal znan kot ´teden ognja´, ki je najbolj prizadel mesti Buenos Aires in Rosario s temperaturami do 37 stopinj Celzija, vendar z zelo visokim indeksom vlažnosti, ki je dvignil občutek vročine na 49 stopinj Celzija. Umrlo je najmanj 500 ljudi.
To so samo nekateri rekordi iz preteklosti, ki še do danes, ko se Zemlja ´segreva´ z neverjetno hitrostjo, niso bili preseženi. Seveda, podatkov za 21. stoletje je več, naravne nesreče so opisane bolj podrobno, zabeleženih je več vremenskih katastrof. Ampak to je posledica tistega, kar sem zapisal prej: razlika med Gutenbergovim tiskarskim strojem in današnjim internetom je samo v hitrosti širjenja informacij in količini informacij, ki pride do ljudi.
Niki Kovač naj bo nekaj povsem jasno: vsak ima neodtujljivo pravico do lastnega mnenja, ki ga lahko tudi glasno in javno izrazi. In če nekdo meni, da je Inštitut 8. marec zaradi referenduma o vodah sokriv za divjanje požarov, je to njegova pravica. In ne znam si predstavljati sodišča, ki bi ljudi s takim mnenjem obsodilo. Kovačeva namreč posameznikom grozi s pravnimi sredstvi.
Mogoče je kriva vročina, mogoče kaj drugega, Nika Kovač ves čas išče pozornost. Sama najbrž meni, da je to odraz aktivnega državljanstva in budnosti civilne družbe, mene vse skupaj bolj spominja na srhljivko (ne samo po formi, tudi po vsebini). Saj veste, kako gre. Junaki zajemajo sapo, se sprostijo in mislijo, da bo končno mir (vsaj nekaj časa), ker je zlobna pošast mrtva. Ampak ni. Od nikoder se dvigne, spet seje smrt. Nekateri filmi se končajo, da jo dokončno spravijo na drugi svet, drugi imajo nedoločen zaključek, nekakšno pripravo na nadaljevanje. Slednje je ciklus Inštituta 8. marec, za katerega je po volitvah postalo jasno, da si ne želi samo uličnega ropotanja, ampak vlogo politkomisarja, ki se mu mora izpolniti vsaka želja in ukaz (drugače je neposlušnežu kmalu vrat najvišji del telesa). Kako sicer drugače razumeti Kovačevo, ki zahteva, da se morajo na ´obtožbe´ odzvati pristojni organi in politične stranke. In lahko verjamete, da se bodo. Enkrat je ulica levico že postrojila na Trgu republike.
Kovačeva ima seveda vso pravico, da išče zadoščenje na sodišču; nihče ji ne odreka lastnega mnenja (ki ga lahko tudi javno pove), da je bila zakonodaja desnosredinske vlade ´škodljiva´; če ji levičarski politiki pustijo, jih ima lahko na povodcu. Je pa izključno njen problem, če je zaradi stališč strank konservativnega svetovnega nazora užaljena. In ona je pogosto. Kar je tipična značilnost generacije snežink – občutljivost (da je kaj) na vsako kritiko.
Če bi bila občutljivost edina težava, bi lahko samo posmehljivo zamahnili z roko: naj se meče na trepalnice, če želi, naj cepeta, če že hoče. Problem za zdravorazumsko družbeno okolje je, da je Inštitut 8. marec tipična organizacija s strupeno levičarsko ideologijo: boj za končni nadzor in proti tradicionalnim vrednotam, na katerih je zrasla evropska civilizacija. To je jedro najslabših vrst, ki izhajajo iz intersekcionalizma, teorije, ki ima toliko netočnosti, da je težko vedeti, na katere napake najprej opozoriti.
Zdi se, da Slovenijo čaka nevihtno vreme. Tega, kar se približuje našim oknom, se ne bi smeli ustrašiti. Že večkrat v zgodovini se je zgodilo, da je prihajalo zlo, a vedno so se našli pogumni ljudje, ki so držali vrsto in so v pesek zarisali črto, prek katere lažnih prerokov (Nika Kovač je le ena od njih), ki obljubljajo, da bodo vse nahranili in oblekli, samo svojo poslušnost in vdanost jim je treba dati, niso več pustili. Slovenija ni nobena posebnost. Predvsem Zahod je danes posejan z raznimi organizacijami (kot je Inštitut 8. marec). Imajo neizmerno željo po vsemogočnosti. Le navidezni. Ko obljubljajo srečo, širijo revščino in bedo. Ko govorijo o svobodi, mislijo na (državno) suženjstvo. Bojim se, da se spopadu ni več mogoče izogniti in da bo vojna znotraj civilizacije obarvala Ren, Donavo, Loaro, Savo in Pad v rdeče. In za pokol bodo krive tudi nevladne organizacije, ki pod grožnjo s silo vsiljujejo svoje bolestne ideologije in teorije. Dobri ljudje bodo Bogu hvaležni za preizkušnjo, ki pride vsakih nekaj generacij. In vsakič vera bogaboječih ojekleni, da gre življenje lahko mirno naprej. Tisti, ki so vse to sprožili, bodo postali le oddaljen boleč spomin.
Zato po Niki Kovač ne bo poimenovana nobena ulica, njeno ime se nikoli ne bo omenjalo v pridevniški obliki. Naj se še tako trudi. Bo ena prvih, ki bi jo zgodovina najrajši hitro pozabila.
Ne, seveda ne. Drugi amandma k ameriški ustavi ni namenjen lovu na race ali srnjad, namenjen je samoobrambi in uperjen proti vladi. Ker je vsak državljan lahko oborožen, to zagotavlja, da vsakokratna aktualna oblast ostane na povodcu. Da si ne drzne sprejemati avtokratske regulative. Če je prvi amandma simbol svobode, je drugi temelj svobode. Tudi zato je četrti ameriški predsednik James Madison napisal prvih deset amandmajev, ki so bolj znani kot ´ Bill of Rights´.
Listina pravic (ali ´Bill of Rights´) je pomembna, ker je to v bistvu seznam zadev, kjer je moč oblasti omejena. Ustanovni očetje so se pred skoraj 250 leti zavedali, da se lahko vsaka vlada pokvari, da je vsaka oblast nagnjena k avtokraciji in tiraniji, da ljudstvo občasno izvoli bedake in pohlepneže, da bodo politični voditelji mestoma skušali zlorabiti svoja pooblastila in vladati mimo pravil. To je mogoče le z ustrahovanjem (edino vlade so pooblaščene za uporabo orožja), a se bodo držale nazaj, če bodo vedele, da je ljudstvo oboroženo.
V ZDA v obrambo pravic in svoboščin, ki so zapisane v ustavo, še ni prišlo do množičnega oboroženega upora. Po ulicah za zdaj razgrajajo in uničujejo lastnino tisti, ki zahtevajo razorožitev lastnikov orožja, čeprav gre za ljudi, ki najbolj spoštujejo civilne in pravne norme. Progresivna medijska mašinerija jih obtožuje ekstremnega desničarstva in sostorilstva množičnih morilskih pohodov po šolah. Ni naključje, da si levičarji prizadevajo omejiti tudi prvi amandma (svoboda govora), hkrati pa odvzeti orožje državljanom, ki verjamejo v ustavo in spoštujejo zakon.
Drugi razlog, zakaj je amandma pomemben, je pravica do samoobrambe. Roparji, vlomilci in tatovi bodo prišli do orožja ne glede, kako bo dostop do njega država regulirala. Zakonita posest pa je za običajne državljane najbolj preprost in cenovno ugoden način samoobrambe. Včasih je dovolj strel v zrak, da preženeš nepridiprave, drugič se moraš braniti z neposrednim streljanjem v napadalce. Čakanje, da bo policija ukrepala, je čas, ki lahko odloča o življenju in smrti. Zato bi odvzem strelnega orožja državljanom posegel v njihovo varnost.
Streljanje na sočloveka (še posebej vojna) je grozna stvar. Človek uporabi vsa druga sredstva, da se temu izogne. A če ne gre drugače, je uporaba strelnega orožja zadnja možnost za ohranitev življenja in svoboščin. Toda imeti v lasti orožje še ne pomeni, da prosto streljaš po ljudeh.
Ameriška ustava je bila od rafitikacije do zdaj spremenjena 27-krat (vključno z desetimi amandmaji Listine pravic). Da ne bi vsakokratna oblast samovoljno spreminjala tega temelja svobode, je postopek spremembe zelo težak in naporen. Ustava je namenjena ohranjanju močne države, a s pooblastili zelo omejene zvezne vlade. Slednjemu je namenjena Listina pravic. Ravno ta del, ki zavezuje vlado, da ne bo posegala v svobodo državljanov, je za progresivne najbolj moteč. Želeli bi si namreč omejitev svobode govora (ki jo ameriška ustava dojema v absolutnem smislu) in razorožitev državljanov, da bi jih lažje spravili kot ovce v vagone. Tako tudi razumejo (ali ne razumejo) ameriško ustavo. Oni ves čas trdijo, da besede (zapisano) ne pomeni tistega, kar ima jasen pomen. Uporabljajo jezik, ki pravi pomen besed obrne ali pa mu da povsem nov, progresiven pomen. Tako trdijo, da ima drugi amandma svoje korenine v rasizmu.
Drugi amandma ni nikoli temeljil na rasi, to je bil od svojega začetka amandma o svobodi. Ni namenjen temu, da bi koga zasužnjil, namenjen je preprečevanju natikanja okov in uporu, če ti kdo (tudi vlada) poskuša natakniti okove. Gre za vzvod, legalno podlago, da zaščitiš in varuješ življenja, tudi svojega. Če ima človek pravico do življenja, ima neodtujljivo pravico, da to življenje brani.
Eno je, ko levičarji (samo) govorijo o gospodarstvu in eksperimentirajo s svojim denarjem, nekaj povsem drugega je, ko se ekonomske politike izvajajo. Takrat začno vse loviti demoni in škodo občutijo vsi.
Z nastopom Golobove vlade, ki je najbolj leva po osamosvojitvi, se bo zgodilo nekaj slabega. In zaradi velike večine, ki so jo v te roke izročili volivci, je skoraj nemogoče, da bi se temu izognili. Ne gre samo za nesposobnost in neznanje, v igri sta tudi zlonamernost in maščevanje, ki ga podžigajo poulični »prebujenci« (wokeism) s svojimi viktimizirajočimi in moralizirajočimi klišeji, kako (skrajna) desnica uničuje socialno državo in z nižanjem davkov pomaga bogatim, da postanejo še bogatejši. Svoj moralni in materialni vakuum gradijo na zelo spolzkem terenu, na nestabilnem pesku, zgodovino kot učiteljico ne samo, da zavračajo, ampak jo popravljajo v skladu z novodobnimi normami. Njihov izbrani maziljenec, ki bo spremenil svet po njihovi podobi, bo služil vsem, pravijo, saj bi brez njega ostali na poti do cilja.
Dvajseto stoletje je na zelo krvav in trd način dokazalo, da marksistično gospodarstvo, nad katerim se navdušujejo in so z njim okužili tudi novo slovensko vlado, ne deluje. Največji tovrstni eksperiment v zgodovini človeštva (od Sovjetske zveze do Jugoslavije) je propadel, jasno je dokazal in pokazal, kaj se zgodi, če o ekonomiji odločajo ljudje, ki zanjo niso usposobljeni. Ni po naključju podnaslov tega bloga misel Hayeka: Če bi se socialisti spoznali na ekonomijo, ne bi bili socialisti.
Nedavno sem v intervjuju za Portal24 omenil, da novodobni levičarji, ki so zrasli z ideologijo kulturnega marksizma, stremijo k nekakšnem romantičnem socializmu, da bi si vsi med seboj vse delili in živeli kot velika družina. To je bilo možno, ko je bilo človeštvo na stopnji lovcev in nabiralcev, ki so živeli v majhnih skupinah, sestavljenih večinoma iz sorodnikov. Ameriški ekonomist Paul Harold Rubin temu pravi »primitivna ekonomija prebujene levice«. Tudi Marxov ekonomski sistem, ki je gospodarstvo opredeljeval kot konflikt in ne kot sodelovanje med delom in kapitalom, se je oziral na plemenske družbe daleč v preteklosti. Po njegovo so bogati obogateli zato, ker so izkoriščali revne delavce. Njegova teorija, kako to uravnotežiti (igra ničelne vsote), se je izkazala za napačno. Tudi eksperiment jugoslovanskih komunistov s samoupravljanjem je klavrno končal.
Rubin pravi, da je bila »ljudska ekonomija« možna v določeni stopnji evolucije, ko je bilo malo kapitala in je bil svet skoraj brez specializacije poklicev. S hitrim razvojem v zadnjih stoletjih in pojavom kapitalističnih ekonomij, ko je Adam Smith dokazal, da je kapital produktiven in da lahko delo in kapital sodelujeta pri povečanju dohodka (predvsem pa, da zapleteno gospodarstvo lahko deluje samo, brez da bi se kdo vmešaval s centralnim planiranjem), je to primitivno teorijo znova populariziral Marx. Čeprav je za seboj pustila opustošenje in povzročila revščino v številnih državah, se, kot pravi Rubin, »pripadniki prebujene levice želijo vrniti k politikam, ki temeljijo na primitivnem ekonomskem razmišljanju«.
Ekonomsko politiko »prebujenih« spodbujajo teorije spolnih, rasnih in drugih kvot, ki jih morajo podjetniki upoštevati. Če k temu dodamo visoke davke, s katerimi merijo na bogatejše (ki so tako ali tako največje zlo, namesto da bi jih prepoznali kot podjetne, ki dajejo delo tisočim in lajšajo življenje milijonom), regulacijo po dolgem in počez ter poskuse nadzora nad cenami je cilj en sam – ponovna oživitev primitivnih ekonomij. Težava je domišljanje »prebujenih«, da svet razumejo bolje, kot vsi ostali. Podrejanje tej (v svojem bistvu) avtoritativni ideologiji pomeni biti na avtocesti v propad. Kar se že dogaja.
Sodobna levica tudi ni zmožna soočiti argumentov, ki so na strani prostotržno razmišljujočih. Kakorkoli obrnete, zgodovina 20. stoletja je ponudila dovolj trdnih in lahko preverljivih dokazov, da desničarske ekonomske politike (kapitalizem, če želite) delujejo. Analitičarka iz Dun & Bradstreeta Prachi Juneja v Vodniku po ekonomskih študijah dobro opiše levičarske teorije o gospodarski rasti.
Tipično sklepanje sodobnih levičarjev je, da na potrošniškem trgu, ki ga večinoma sestavljajo ljudje, ki vsak mesec za preživetje porabijo celo plačo, bogati porabijo veliko manj kot revni. Njihovo razmišljanje je, če bi šel del dohodka od bogatih k revnim, bi slednji več potrošili, s tem bi se povečala gospodarska rast. Zato zagovarjajo politike, kot je minimalna plača, davčne olajšave za ljudi z nižjimi dohodki in še kaj bi se našlo. Levičarski ekonomisti predpostavljajo, da bo bogatim dejansko bolje dajati višje plače. To je zato, ker bodo dobili majhen delež rastočega gospodarstva namesto večjega deleža stagnirajočega.
Juneja meni, da bi taki ukrepi povzročili zmanjšanje gospodarske rasti, ker so v nasprotju z osnovami ekonomije. Če se delavcem na silo dodeli večji delež in kapitalistom odvzame njihov delež, bodo upočasnili proizvodnjo. Zakon ponudbe kaže, da dobavitelji proizvedejo več, če zaslužijo več dobička na enoto. Vendar pa tudi manj proizvajajo, če se njihov dobiček zmanjša. Torej, čeprav bi se plače posameznih delavcev lahko povečale, bi se lahko število zaposlenih delavcev zmanjšalo. Posledično bo znesek denarja, dodeljen revnemu in srednjemu razredu, ostal enak ali pa bo celo manjši. »Te politike so del lažne blagovne znamke ekonomije, katere pravi namen je pridobiti politično kilometrino,« zaključi Juneja.
Te »lažne blagovne znamke ekonomije« Golobova vlada predlaga kot rešitev za vse, kar naj bi povzročila desnosredinska Janševa vlada. Interventni zakon, s katerim naj bi rešili nujne težave v zdravstvu, je že korak v to smer. Jasno je, da ne gre za interventni zakon, ampak za zakon, ki bo pravna podlaga za polmilijardni eksperiment boljševizacije zdravstva. Vprašanje je, kako daleč bo šla ta vlada. Trenutno se nam ne obeta nič dobrega. Bojim se, da bodo z eksperimentom v zdravstvu dosegli to, da bomo na koncu zdravniško pomoč vsi iskali pri vaških zdravilcih. Upanje, da mogoče le ne bo tako hudo in tiščanje glave v pesek ne bosta pomagala. Noj se s tem ne zaščiti pred nevarnostjo.
Se spomnite Venezuele v tem stoletju in eksperimenta Huga Cháveza, ki si je postavil prednostno nalogo, da s kolektivizmom odpravi revščino? Vsi levičarski intelektualci in modni ekonomisti so ga hvalili, poslanca Levice Violeta Tomić in Miha Kordiš sta celo odpotovala (na učno ekskurzijo) v Venezuelo. Po propadu so vsi iskali zapletene izgovore izgovore, češ da v Venezueli ni bil pravi socializem. Ideja je bila sicer dobra, prenos zamisli v prakso pa slab, je najpogostejše opravičilo. In, kakopak, zarota kapitalističnih in imperialističnih ZDA.
V Sloveniji bo poleg »dobrih idej, a slabe izvedbe« kriva še desna opozicija. Jasno. Levica je vedno živela od etiketiranja drugih in njej lastnih fantazij, neverjetna je njihova sposobnost reinkarnacije zgrešenih doktrin in politik. Še bolj nerazumljivo je obnašanje volivcev, ki vedno znova nasedejo iluzijam izkrivljenih stališč, čeprav bi jim moralo biti še od prej jasno, da prav nobena levičarska shema ne deluje.
Slovenijo je po volilni zmagi Gibanja svoboda zajela prava epidemija dobrih namenov, ki bodo žal imeli katastrofalne posledice. Do zdaj smo bili navajeni, da gre za floskule, ki so pred volitvami namenjene popularizaciji nesmiselnih (običajno ekonomskih) politik. Levičarji govorijo tisto, kar se lepo sliši v njihovi domišljiji, desničarji so nagnjeni k stvarem in idejam, ki delujejo v realnosti.
Dosedanje leve vlade so se bolj ali manj zaletele v realnost in dokaj hitro opustile svoje zamisli. Mestoma zato, ker so imeli nekateri še kanček zdrave pameti, mestoma zato, ker v koaliciji ni bilo skrajne levice. Tokrat je drugače. Ne samo, da je Levica v vladi, ampak je njen najverjetnejši mandatar Robert Golob posvojil njen in poulični ideološki program. Prava grozljivka je, ko človek spozna, da ti ljudje resnično verjamejo, da je denar drugih ljudi njihova last, da imajo pravico drugim ukazovati, kako naj porabijo svoj zaslužek in si domišljajo, da so pristojni odločati, kaj bomo v življenju počeli in kako bomo svoje življenje preživljali za njih manj razsvetljeni plebejci. Gorečnost, s katero govorijo, kaže, da so s svojim levičarskim progresivizmom prišli do stopnje ateistične religioznosti (kulta politične korektnosti), ko njihova duhovščina ne bo imela usmiljenja do heretikov.
Ne verjamete? Potem ste preslišali, kaj je Golob govoril na Odmevih. Ta človek je dejansko začel misliti, da lahko spelje socialistično revolucijo, ki ji pravi »najnaprednejši pristopi skandinavskih držav in zahodne Evrope«. Ampak to, kar on govori, je daleč od tega, da bi bilo skandinavsko ali zahodnoevropsko (čeprav so te države že začele s socialističnim eksperimentom).
Oglasili so se sicer nekateri ekonomisti in gospodarstveniki (med drugimi tudi Klub Slovenskih podjetnikov in Združenje delodajalcev Slovenije) ter Goloba posvarili pred njegovimi namerami, ki pomenijo razdiranje in nikakor ne svobode. Golobov odziv je bil skrb vzbujajoč.
Takole je odgovoril voditeljici Odmevov Tanji Starič, da bi vlada morala vendarle poslušati tudi gospodarstvo: »Kritike samo kažejo na to, da tisti, ki to izjavljajo, v tem primeru združenje delodajalcev, nimajo pojma, kako je videti razvito zahodnoevropsko gospodarstvo, in na neki način si želijo, da ostanemo narod hlapcev, narod nizko plačanih delovnih mest, kjer bo imel šef delodajalec zadnjo besedo in vsi drugi bomo morali biti tiho. Sam pa pravim, ne hvala. Obstajajo drugačni principi. Tudi v Sloveniji jih imamo. In mi bomo pokazali, da lahko celo Slovenijo spravimo na to pot.«
Si predstavljate? Golob je eksplicitno izjavil, da bodo celo Slovenijo spravili »na to pot« (kar imajo zapisano v koalicijski pogodbi) – zlepa ali zgrda. »Saj se bodo sami pridružili, ne se bati,« je zatrdil.
To spominja na boljševistično novačenje, ko so ljudem obljubljali, da bodo v socializmu vsi jedli breskve in smetano. Ko jim je kdo odvrnil, da on ne mara breskev in smetane, so revolucionarji razložili: »Ko pride revolucija, tovariš, boste vsi imeli radi breskve in smetano.«
Ja, na žalost se končuje kratkotrajno obdobje desnosredinske »anarhije« in s tem povezane gospodarske rasti. Prihaja vlada, ki se bo ukvarjala z izmišljanjem novih metod socialnega inženiringa, kar se bo končalo tako, kot v vseh socialističnih državah: pomanjkanjem, revščino, bankrotom in podobnimi gospodarskimi katastrofami. Pregovor pravi, da se pametni učijo na napakah drugih, neumni pa na svojih. To očitno ne velja za veliko večino slovenskih državljanov, ki se do zdaj ničesar niso naučili: ne iz napak drugih, še iz svojih ne.
Kavarna Hayek 