»Ravno socializem je tista vera, ki mora preglasiti krščanstvo. … V novem redu bo socializem zmagal tako, da bo s preoblikovanjem zavesti družbe in infiltracijo v šole, univerze, cerkve ter medije najprej zajel kulturo.«
To so besedeAntonia Gramscija, marksističnega teoretika in začetnika kulturnega marksizma. Desetletja po njem smo priča izbruhu politike identitete. Agresivno in hitro se je pojavila v Zahodni Evropi, okužila je tudi nekatere postsocialistične države. Promocija razgradnje tistega, kar je ustvarilo vsaj četrt tisočletja uspehov in rasti evropske civilizacije, je v rokah duševno bolnih, če ne zlobnih ljudi. Življenje v novem ultraseksualiziranem svetu, ki ruši vse moralne in univerzalne meje ravnanja, vsiljuje manjšina, ki je glasna in zganja dovolj veliko hrupa, da si psihopati in sociopati med politiki, ki odločajo o usodi življenja državljanov, domišljajo, da imajo poslanstvo božanstva.
Prav ima Jože Mlakar (to sem tudi sam večkrat zapisal), ki pravi, da je to mogoče le, ker so se ljudje odpovedali Bogu. Naj dodam, da ne samo to. Posvetne oblasti so si nadele masko Boga. Zdaj ni več Bog tisti, ki se ga ljudje zaradi poslednje sodbe bojijo, ljudje so se začeli bati vlad in počasi zanemarili božja opozorila, kaj je prav in kaj ni prav. Tudi zato se je lahko zgodilo, da so poslanci sprejeli novelo družinskega zakonika, ki je naslednja stopnja načrta kulturnih marksistov – uničenje družine. In prava vojna se je pravkar začela.
Zvijačnost kulturnih marksistov je, da se družina obrne proti njej sami, da se njena razgradnja kot skupnosti očeta, matere in otrok uporabi za izbris naslednje tarče – naroda. Treba je razumeti njihov načrt, njihove namene. Družina je osnovna celica, da se ohranijo nacionalni jezik, kultura, tradicija in vera. Zamislite si, da je telo narod, družina pa človeška celica, najmanjši del organizma, ki mu pravimo tudi gradbeni element življenja. Da bi uničili telo, je treba uničiti celico. To se najlažje naredi tako, da se virusu omogoči vstop vanjo. In natanko to so naredili poslanci, ki so glasovali za novelo (ali so se vzdržali) – odprli so vrata smrtonosnemu virusu, ki se bo zdaj razmnoževal in uničeval druge, neokužene celice. In sploh ni potrebno, da virus okuži vse celice v telesu, dovolj je, da doseže kritično točko, ki uniči imunski sistem in tako ubije celotno telo.
Družina oziroma njena temeljna struktura (ali namen) kot zveze moškega, ženske in potomcev je bistvena za nadaljevanje in reprodukcijo geografsko zaokrožene družbe, ki jo prepoznamo kot domovino, državo ali skupnost nekega naroda. Regulatorna opredelitev zakonske zveze kot skupnosti dveh oseb in možnost posvojitve otrok partnerjev (ne)znanih spolov je virus, ki bo sistemsko načel sposobnost naroda po samoohranitvi (poleg drugega virusa, ki ga prepoznamo kot spuščanje tretjega sveta v skupnost, kjer je kultura diametralno nasprotna gostiteljevi). Slovenci smo kot narod skozi zgodovino preživeli cesarstva in kraljevine, nam tuje državne tvorbe, ravno zaradi družine, ki je iz roda v rod prenašala domač jezik, kulturo, tradicijo in vero. To je tista krvna linija, ki jo je težko uničiti in se vedno znova pojavi; včasih od nikoder.
Narod ti lahko napadaš, okupiraš ali izvajaš genocid, a vedno bo na istem geografskem območju ostalo seme, tisto jedro naroda, ki ga prepoznamo kot nuklearno, tradicionalno družino. Ta bo (lahko za dolga stoletja povsem potihoma) prenašala naprej tisto, kar jih je nekoč držalo skupaj in kar jih bo v prihodnosti držalo skupaj. Tako smo Slovenci preživeli tisočletja. In ko smo končno dobili svojo državo, ki je država Slovencev in Slovenk, se najdejo koristni idioti globalistov, ki z virusom želijo uničiti družino in njeno zmožnost svojo zgodovino prenašati na potomce. To ni nič drugega kot poskus izbrisati narod. Nismo edini. To se dogaja povsod po stari celini; ponekod je virus skoraj že ubil gostitelja (Švedska, Francija, Nemčija).
Ideologija identitete (ob teoriji spolov) na novo opredeljuje moške in ženske, na novo definira družino. Zdaj ne gre več samo zato, da moški, ki si domišljajo, da so ženske, silijo v ženske športe in garderobe; da je treba tudi moškim brezpogojno zagotoviti dojenje in nosečnost (kakopak, tudi splav); da se najmlajše spodbuja k zgodnji spolnosti; da šole odvračajo otroke od svojih staršev; da se spodbuja k spremembi spolov; da pop kultura najstnike prepričuje, da si ´in´, če spremeniš spolno usmeritev. Cilj kulturnih marksistov je, da zmeda v glasi otrok in najstnikov povzroči odklon od družine. In ko ta ni več varno zavetje pred nemoralo in bogaboječe pribežališče pred zlom, se potomci ne odvrnejo samo od družine, ampak od naroda. Začne se zaničevanje samega sebe, družine in naroda, patriotizem zamenja multikulturalizem. S tako opranimi glavami in virusom v sebi nobena skupnost, ki je prej preživela stoletja s skupnimi vrednotami, ne more obstati več. Z napadi na narod (telo) se lahko obstane, z napadi na nuklearno družino (celica) ne umre samo družina, ampak tudi narod. Zato je cilj ´enoplanetarcev´ uničenje osnovne celice naroda.
To perspektivo, to veliko sliko je treba imeti pred očmi, ko o tem govorimo in se proti temu borimo. Ne moremo več reči, to je majhna stvar, to je majhna in nepomembna težava. Ni res. Zdaj je pomembna vsaka malenkost. To niso več smešni ljudje s klobuki iz kositrne folije ali nesmisli iz knjige Alice v čudežni deželi; za levico ni nič samodejno in samostojno, za levico je vse med seboj povezano, tudi malenkosti, ki se sprva zdijo smešne in posmeha vredne. In te ´malenkosti´ trajajo že dolgo, vsaka generacija doda novo. In na koncu bodo prihajajoče generacije brez kakršnihkoli filtrov spodobnosti. Če se jim danes vsili noveliran družinski zakonik kot nekaj normalnega, bodo jutri običajne pedofilske poroke iz islamske kulture, pojutrišnjem pa bosta zakonsko zvezo sklenila oseba neznanega spola in steblo hrasta, ki jima bo država uradno dovolila posvojiti namišljenega možiclja s podganjo glavo. Deviantne prakse, ki so bile včasih zdravniški problem, bodo prestopile ograje in postale ne samo normalne, ampak družbeno zaželene. In tam, kjer bodo mladi podzavestni umi že povsem reprogramirani, bodo nuklearne družine zločin, pripadnost narodu pa odklon, ki se kaznuje z rehabilitacijo ali smrtjo.
Zato je zahteva levice, da imajo pod nadzorom izobraževanje. Mladi se takrat oblikujejo, najlaže se indoktrinirajo, uniči se jih detektorje resnice in čednosti. To nalogo imajo aktivisti LGBT, ki prihajajo v šole. Brišejo jim spoštovanje družinske avtoritete in pospešujejo navezovanje stikov z novo ´normalnostjo´. Otrokom, ranljivi kot so, je to sprva zabava, ki kasneje postane zaukazana smer. To je ključno. Uničevanje družine je torej veliko globje, kot se kaže navzven. Ampak dokler ne odpokličemo iz parlamenta poslancev, ki s pomočjo zakonodaje spreminjajo ´slabo´ v ´dobro´, bodo še naprej širili morilski virus.
Slovenci smo se kot narod ohranili zaradi krščanstva in splošno sprejetega koncepta nuklearne (naravne družine). To je bila zdrava celica naroda, tisto sidro, ki je vzdržalo vsa plimovanja in nevihte. Novela zakona je močno zarezala v verigo, ki povezuje sidro in ladjo. Potrebno bo veliko truda, da popravimo spojne člene. Vsekakor moramo najprej sneti ´lepe´ rokavice in se z levico spopasti oboroženi s tistim, kar najbolj sovražijo – domoljubjem. Slednji izraz zajema oboje: naravno družino in ljubezen do svojega naroda.
Tekst je bil prvič objavljen na portalu revije Demokracija (5. oktober 2022).
Kakopak, pritegnil me je naslov. Evropi se obeta podobna zabava kot v 70. letih, je pisalo na spletni strani časnika Delo. Ne vem, ali je bila energetska kriza pred pol stoletja res zabava ali ne, vem pa, da je tej »zabavi« sledila »postzabava« (after party), ki je imela strahovite posledice za Evropo.
Članek v Delu je bil pogovor s Sibilom Svilanom, bančnikom, ki se je kalil v udbovski LHB Frankfurt in tri mandate vodil SID banko. Bančnik in kandidat za novega viceguvernerja Banke Slovenije ugotavlja, da sta Evropa in Slovenija v težavah zaradi podcenjevanja dolgoročnih geostrateških odločitev. Sklicuje se na Paula Krugmana, da se Evropi obeta »zabava kot v 70. letih 20. stoletja«. (Krugman sicer ni ravno neka referenca, ker se njegove napovedi skoraj nikoli niso uresničile, ampak zdaj ima verjetno prav, čeprav se meni to ne zdi ravno »zabava«.)
»Ta zabava se bo Evropi lahko ponovila,« pravi Svilan, »potrebne so hitre, vendar dolgoročne skupne evropske rešitve, kjer morajo vodilno vlogo in žrtve prevzeti Nemci, Francozi in tudi Italijani, sicer bomo to zabavo dolgo in drago plačevali vsi Evropejci.« Ampak poglejmo, kakšna je bila energetska »zabava« v 70. letih, ko so vodilno vlogo prav tako imeli Nemci in Francozi, ki so kasneje organizirali tudi »after party«. Zato to ni zgodba o »zabavi«, ampak zgodba o »postzabavi«.
Povojni razcvet Zahoda so poganjala fosilna goriva. Zaradi povečanega povpraševanja je nafta iz Arabskega polotoka postajala vse bolj pomembna, a zaradi konfliktov na Bližnjem vzhodu tudi vse bolj nezanesljiva. Ker so ZDA podpirale Izrael, so države OAPEC zmanjšale proizvodnjo nafte in uvedle embargo na izvoz nafte v ZDA. Muslimanske države, ki so bile naklonjene Palestincem, so tudi zagrozile, da bo embargo veljal za vse države, ki podpirajo politiko ZDA. Francija, ki je že v času Charlesa de Gaulla kuhala jezo na ZDA in jo krivila, da je izgubila svoje kolonije, je začutila priložnost za maščevanje. Najprej je na svojo stran pridobila Zahodno Nemčijo, ki se je vse bolj krepila in se je hotela otresti vpliva ZDA, nato še druge članice takratne EGS (danes EU). In še preden se je kri izraelskih športnikov z olimpijskih objektov v Münchnu leta 1972 (ko so jih ugrabili in pobili prav Palestinci) dobro sprala, so bile razvite zahodnoevropske države že v naročju krempljev islama.
Januarja 1975 je bila na pobudo Parlamentarnega združenja evropsko-arabskega sodelovanja v okviru Evropske gospodarske skupnosti sprejeta Strasbourška resolucija. Bistvo resolucije je bilo, da Zahodna Evropa dobi nafto, v zameno se podpre muslimanskemu svetu. »Moj Bog, ni šlo za zaroto, ki bi jo v temi pletli neznani ali obešenjaki, znani samo policijskim postajam in Interpolu. Šlo je za zaroto, opravljeno pri belem dnevu, pred očmi vseh, pred televizijskimi kamerami, in izpeljali so jo sloviti voditelji,« je več kot četrt stoletja v svoji knjigi zapisala italijanska novinarka Oriana Fallaci.
V tistem času se je začel vzpon islamskega radikalizma (ki je v Evropi nato zamenjal levičarska ekstremistična gibanja, kot so bile Rdeče brigade in RAF), hkrati pa skozi uradne institucije pritlehen vstop islama v Evropo. Od takrat naprej ni šlo več samo za gospodarsko sodelovanje, ampak je tedanji evropsko-arabski »dialog« podprl številne izobraževalne in kulturne programe islamskih centrov v Evropi. Uveljavil se je izraz Evrabija. Po podatkih ameriškega Centra za raziskave globalnega krščanstva se je v naslednjih 25 letih število muslimanov v Zahodni Evropi povečalo za 142,6 odstotka (do začetka 70. let jih je bilo le za vzorec, bili so eksotika), danes delež muslimanov presega deset odstotkov življa v Evropi (po projekcijah jih bo zaradi hitrega razmnoževanja v naslednjem poldrugem desetletju že okoli 30 odstotkov).
Poglejmo, kakšne posledice je imela (po Svilanovo) »zabava« v 70. letih. Najprej so se evropska mesta začela polniti z »goniči kamel«, kot jih je imenovala Fallacijeva. To je bil tudi čas, ko je Gadafi kupil 10 odstotkov Fiata, Francija začela z gradnjo jedrske elektrarne v Iraku, ko je Egipčan Al Fajed vrgel oko na veleblagovnico Harrods v Londonu, hkrati pa tudi čas, ko so evropski zgodovinarji začeli revidirati zgodovino. Aprila leta 1983 je tedanji nemški zunanji minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher odprl simpozij evro-arabskega dialoga v Hamburgu ter opeval veličino islamske civilizacije, ki jo je imenoval svetilnik luči. »Luč, ki je stoletja razsvetljevala Evropo, pomagala Evropi, da je stopila iz barbarstva,« je dejal. Takega ponižanja Evropejci sredi svoje celine še niso doživeli. Številne konference in simpoziji, ki so si sledili, so prinašali vedno nove revizije. Naenkrat je denimo španska zgodovinarka Margarita Lopez Gomez začela trditi, da papirja niso iznašli Kitajci, ampak Muslimani iz Damaska in Bagdada. Po njeno tudi Hipokrat ni začel s preučevanjem krvnega obtoka, ampak islamski učenjak Ibn Sina, Evropejcem bolj znan kot Avicena. Kar čez noč je civilizacija muslimanom začela dolgovati tudi zasluge za artičoke, špinačo, pomaranče, limone in celo bombaž. In vsi so ploskali turškemu sociologu Şerifu Mardinu, ko je oznanil, da tudi pesniško šolo dolce stil nuovo, ki je razcvet doživela z Dantejem Alighierijem, dolgujemo muslimanom. Ampak to še ni vse. Profesor Louis Baeck s katoliške univerze v Louvainu v Belgiji je trdil, da oče ekonomskega liberalizma ni Adam Smith, ampak prerok Mohamed. »Dosti je tega, da pripisujemo Zahodu vse zasluge za razsvetljenstvo,« pa je na seminarju o Orientu v Bonnu rjovel profesor Reinhard Schulze, češ da je s tem začel damaščanski zgodovinar Abdalgani al Nabulusi.
Res, bila je prava »zabava«, ki se kar ni hotela končati. Takole je pol desetletja nazaj dogajanje opisovala Francozinja Christine Tasin, predsednica Resistance Republicaine: »… toda obstaja še en dan v zgodovini, ki ga pozna zelo malo ljudi. S tem dnem bi rada opozorila tiste med nami, ki trdijo, da muslimani niso odgovorni, da so odgovorne samo naše elite, ki jim gre za lastne koristi. 5. januarja 1986 je bil v Libiji tajni sestanek, ki se ga je udeležilo pet tajnih služb petih arabskih držav. Te države so bile Irak, Egipt, Savdska Arabija, Libija in Alžirija. Pet držav. In kaj so sklenili na tem ultra tajnem sestanku? Da bodo spodbudili načrtno invazijo na Evropo, predvsem na Francijo, in jo islamizirali. Za ta sestanek so naši voditelji vedeli, vsi so vedeli zanj, o tem so nekaj dni kasneje govorili na Elizejskih poljanah. In kaj so naši voditelji naredili, da bi se borili proti sklepom sestanka? Na stežaj so odprli vrata. Odprli so jim vrata, čeprav so vedeli, da nas bodo napadli, da želijo zasesti našo deželo. Zato so odgovorni oboji: naši izdajalci, islamo-kolaboranti, in seveda muslimani iz islamskih držav.«
Kdorkoli se je uprl islamizaciji Evrope, je bil označen za islamofoba in rasista. Septembra leta 1991, ko je parlamentarna skupščina Sveta Evrope sprejela sramotno priporočilo – Prispevek islamske civilizacije k evropski kulturi, je glas dvignil norveški parlamentarec Hallgrim Berg:
»Gospodje, tukaj sami sebe vlečemo za nos. To poročilo nima nič opraviti z islamsko kulturo v retrospektivi in ni tako nedolžno, kakor se zdi. Predvsem zato, ker ne izreče niti ene besede o odvratnem ravnanju z ženskami v islamski kulturi. (…) Kar vi počnete, ni dialog: je monolog, pri katerem v imenu liberalne misli, intelektualne velikodušnosti gledate na stvari z ene strani in konec. (…) Vi zahtevate, denimo, naj se umaknejo šolska besedila, ki ne govorijo o prispevku islama h kulturnemu razvoju Evrope. In oni? (…) Zahtevate tudi, da bi v naš šolski sistem, to je na naše univerze, še posebno na naše pravne fakultete, uvedli študij koranskega prava. In oni? (…) Gospodje, vaše poročilo ni kulturni dokument. Je politični dokument, ki koristi samo podpiranju islama v Evropi. V imenu demokracije zahtevam, da se ga še enkrat pregleda, pretrese, popravi in ….« (Cel govor lahko preberete TUKAJ)
Medtem so v Evropi rasli islamski centri, džamije in molilnice. Leta 2004 so na smetišču na obrobju Marseilla našli 23-letno Tunizijko Ghofrane Haddaoui. Njen obraz je bil povsem izmaličen. Forenziki so ugotovili, da jo je trojica mladih muslimanov (enega od njih je nesrečnica zavrnila) najprej zverinsko mučila, odrezali so ji ušesa in nato kamenjali. Umor velja za prvo uradno priznano žrtev muslimanskega kamenjanja v Evropski uniji. Danes je v Evropi prek 10.000 mošej, podatek, kdaj so bile zgrajene, pove vse.
Ja, res je bila »zabava« v 70.letih, še posebej je Evropo drago stala »postzabava«. In danes. Energetsko krizo so z vsiljevanjem zelene agende države EU zakuhale same. Čeprav ima Spodnja Saška v Nemčiji ogromne zaloge zemeljskega plina, ga zaradi »trajnostnega razvoja« ne črpa. Nemčija danes rajši išče pomoč v Katarju, ki kot država dokazano financira islamski terorizem in gradi največ mošej po Evropi (financiral je tudi džamijo v Ljubljani). In Arabci nikoli ne dajo ničesar, ne da bi kaj zahtevali v zameno. Toda če sodimo po dogajanju v 70. letih, je del Evrope na »zabavi« in »postzabavi« spet prodan. Pred pol stoletja je bila toEvrabija, politični načrt, da bi se na območju Sredozemlja vzpostavila neka politična struktura, kot je bilo Rimsko cesarstvo. Danes se nadvse uspešno uresničuje, ker Evrabija postaja ne samo območje Sredozemlja, ampak cele Evrope, predvsem njen zahodni del. Nekaj, o čemer so muslimanski zavojevalci pred tisočletjem lahko samo sanjali. Kaj bodo evropske elite tokrat obljubile in dale v zameno Arabcem, bomo najbrž zelo kmalu izvedeli.
Na srečanju podpornikov Nova24TV in revije Demokracija pri Tavčarjevem dvorcu na Visokem v Poljanski dolini (24. september 2022) sem govoril o svobodi govora. Tukaj je nagovor*:
Običajno bi vas ob nekem drugem času in na nekem drugem kraju pozdravil: »Dragi gospodje in gospodiči, drage gospe in gospodične.« Tokrat ne bom. Ne tukaj. In ne zdaj. Rekel bom: »Dragi prijatelji.« Nisem dober govornik, ne retorik, kot sta to kolega televizijca Boris in Aleksander, kljub temu bo poskusil nekaj povedati. In vi, dobri ljudje, mi ne boste zamerili kakega govorniškega zatika ali pogleda na ta list papirja, kjer imam zapisano kako misel, kak citat.
Zatorej, dragi prijatelji, radostno je vas je videti. Prišli ste od blizu in daleč. Predvsem pa nas je veliko. Ni nas malo! Ni nas malo. Vsekakor nas je več, kot bi si želeli nekateri zoprniki. Tisti zoprniki, ki želijo uničiti in iz slovenskega medijskega prostora izbrisati Nova24TV in revijo Demokracija. Tisti zoprniki, ki želijo utišati tudi vas, ki nas podpirate. Ampak ko vidim to množico, vem, da si bodo polomili zobe. In ne bo ga zdravnika ali zobozdravnika na tem svetu, ki bi jim potem lahko popravil čeljust.
Dragi prijatelji, nad Slovenijo, mojo, vašo in našo domovino, se že dlje časa zbirajo temni, nevihtni oblaki. Prvorazredni, visokoleteči in elitni paraziti nam ne želijo odvzeti le sredstva za preživetje, napadajo nas, ker ne kimamo njihovim namišljenim in izmišljenim, bom rekel, postmodernističnim in transhumanističnim vrednotam. Katere so te vrednote, smo videli v zadevi Fotopub. Celo našo nacionalno identiteto nam odrekajo. Po slovenski zemlji še vedno hodi oseba, ki ji samostojna Slovenija nikoli ni bila intimna opcija, oseba, ki je dejala, da si Slovenci ne zaslužimo svoje države, ker sploh nismo narod. Si morate mislite. Zanika naš obstoj kot naroda. Ampak mi smo že dolgo tod.
Poglejte to čudovito Poljansko dolino. Prek teh hribov je še ena dolina. Po teh dveh dolinah so pred davnimi časi naši praprapradedje in prapraprababice odhajali malo bolj proti severu, proti visokim Alpam, kjer so kalili in kovali najboljše jeklo v takratnem rimskem cesarstvu. Od takrat smo že in še mnogo dlje nazaj. Majhna skupinica ljudi, ki se vsako leto zbira v še eni prekrasni slovenski dolini, dolini Soče, to odkriva in razkriva. Ampak nekateri, ki se kitijo z nazivi in naslovi, so akademiki, doktorji in zgodovinarji, to zanikajo. Pomislite, zanikajo izvor svojega naroda. Mi smo o tem pisali, predvsem lani v rubriki Slovenci in slovenstvo, pa so nas napadali, grozili in želeli utišati. Ne samo zaradi tega.
Povem vam, ne smemo se zateči k zvokom molka, k zvokom tišine. Ravno na to računajo – da bomo obmolknili. Moramo imeti pogum, da povemo, kaj si mislimo, da povemo svoje mnenje. Podobno preganjajo svobodo govora po celi Evropi, še posebej na zahodu stare celine. In to v državah, ki smo jih nekoč imeli za ideal demokracije in svobode. Predvčerajšnjim, ta četrtek, so mi francoski kolegi poslali pismo. Povedali so, kako tamkajšnji predsednik Macron in njegov trop preganjajo drugače misleče. Takole so napisali, bom kar prebral: »Kar umre pod temi ponavljajočimi se udarci, to je svoboda izražanja. In če danes ne boste ukrepali vi in vsi tisti, ki se zavedate, da jo je treba nujno braniti, bo neizprosno izginila.« Bolj se ne bi mogel strinjati.
Ampak jaz spet pravim takole. Dokler bo eden izmed, dokler bo zadnji izmed nas pokončno stal, bomo stali vsi! In vedno bo nekdo od nas pokončno stal. Vedno so se v zgodovini našli ljudje, ki so preganjali drugače misleče in jih želeli utišati, a vedno znova so bili v zgodovini tudi ljudje, ki so se temu uprli in branili svobodo govora. Tudi zaradi teh ljudi smo danes tukaj. Imamo zgodovinsko dolžnost, da ohranimo njihovo izročilo, da ubranimo in ohranimo svobodo govora. Nisem prepričan, res nisem prepričan, da bo naša generacija uživala sadove tega boja. Kot zdaj kaže, utegne biti boj ne samo za svobodo govora, ampak tudi za osebno in ekonomsko svobodo, še dolg. A bomo vsaj ponosni na to, da se nismo brezvoljno uklonili in začeli živeti v njihovem namišljenem svetu, v njihovem vzporednem svetu, ki nam ga rišejo.
Najbrž je večina izmed vas gledala film Matrica. Spomnili se boste prizora, ko je Morfej filmskemu junaku Neu ponudil dve tableti. V levi roki je držal tableto, ki je pomenila življenje v laži, nevednosti in v vzporednem svetu, v desni roki je držal tableto, ki je pomenila resnico in življenje v realnosti. Neo je izbral resnico in boj zanjo. Tudi jaz sem to izbral. Zato me zlobniki danes procesirajo in obsojajo na sodiščih, preganja me tožilstvo, zaslišuje policija, obrekujejo v medijih. Stalo me je precej zdravja. A mi ni žal, ker vem, da sem delal prav in delam prav. Enako je z vsemi, ki delajo na Nova24TV in reviji Demokracija. In nobenega dvoma, da ste tudi vi izbrali resnico in pravico. Drugače vas danes ne bi bilo tukaj. Hvala vam.
Boj za svobodo govora bo vrhunec naše generacije. Zaradi tega ima smisel vse, kar se nam je zgodilo, kar se nam dogaja in kar se nam bo še zgodilo. To mora biti zaključek neke preteklosti in začetek prihodnosti. Zato je treba pregnati temne, nevihtne oblake. Mogoče, res mogoče smo vse to potrebovali, da smo se prebudili. Pravim vam. Tisti, ki upajo, da nas bodo utišali, bodo razočarani. In ko bomo opravili to delo, se bomo umaknili v zavetrje časa in senco prostora. Zavedali se bomo, da smo upravičili zaupanje naših prednikov. Ne samo svobodo govora, osebno svobodo in ekonomsko svobodo, tudi našo tradicijo, našo kulturo, naš jezik in našo vero bomo predali v hrambo našim otrokom in vnukom. In oni naprej rodovom, ki prihajajo.
Ne vem, kaj naj vam še porečem. Dragi prijatelji, Bog vas živi! Bog živi Slovenijo! Hvala še enkrat vsem, hvala, ker ste prišli. Hvala vam. Ganjen sem.
*Zapis je nastal na podlagi pripravljenega zapiska. Mestoma kaj odstopa ali je spremenjen vrstni red besed, vendar je vsebinsko enak. Ko dobim magnetogram, ga bom popravil, da bo ustrezalo dejansko izrečenemu.
Čeprav ni jasno, ali je na odločitev evropskih poslancev vplivala ocena göteburškega inštituta ali ne, je vendarle treba uvodoma nekaj povedati o njem. Inštitut mediji pogosto predstavljajo kot ugledno neodvisno in neprofitno organizacijo, ki z indeksom meri stanje demokracije v neki državi. Kar je seveda čista manipulacija. Inštitut meri stanje liberalne demokracije v neki državi, kar je v poročilu jasno označeno. Neko državo ocenjuje, koliko odstopa od liberalnodemokratske ideologije, ki jo ima za edini pravi svetovni nazor. Na Madžarskem je na oblasti Fidesz, ki je deklarirano konservativna politična stranka, kar avtomatično pomeni veliko ideološko odstopanje (glede migracij, družine, naroda, tradicije, splava). Po drugi strani V-Dem zelo visoko ocenjuje Španijo, kjer so na oblasti izpričani socialisti, čeprav je socializem dokazano avtoritativni režim. Toliko o ozadju indeksiranja in o tem, koliko so poročila inštituta verodostojna.
Besedna zveza »volilna avtokracija« je v zadnjih letih postala zelo priljubljena v besednjaku evropskih postmodernističnih levičarjev, za svojo so jo vzele tudi nekatere (vsaj na papirju) desne politične skupine. Z njo označujejo oblasti v Evropi, ki niso sprejele vrednostnega koncepta liberalne demokracije. Po njihovo je to edini pravi in sprejemljivi svetovni nazor, ki zagotavlja svobodno demokracijo. Vse, kar je ideološko desno od sredine, ali je na desni, pa se ne podreja tej »religiji«, in odstopa od »novih vrednot«, naj bi bilo totalitarno in avtokratsko. In, kakopak, kršitev načel pravne države (izmuzljivega in zelo prilagodljivega pojma, ko je treba neko državo obtožiti). Tudi zato sta Madžarska in Poljska, kjer sta vlado z večino sestavili konservativni stranki, ves čas na udaru Bruseljskih birokratov (tudi Slovenija je bila, ko je vlado vodil Janez Janša).
Evropski parlament je torej v četrtek sprejel levo usmerjeno »poročilo« o Madžarski, v katerem piše, da EU Madžarske ne obravnava več kot svobodno demokracijo, ampak kot »volilno avtokracijo«. Za je glasovalo 433 evropskih poslancev, proti 123, 28 pa se jih je glasovanja vzdržalo. Od slovenskih evroposlancev so »poročilo« podprli Klemen Grošelj (Renew), Ljudmila Novak (EPP/NSi) ter Matjaž Nemec in Milan Brglez (oba S&D/SD). Proti sta glasovala Milan Zver in Romana Tomc (oba EPP/SDS), Franc Bogovič (EPP/SLS) se je glasovanja vzdržal, Irena Joveva (Renew) pa se glasovanja ni udeležila. Poslanci, ki so bili proti, so »poročilu« očitali pomanjkanje objektivnosti, prav tako iz »poročila« ni jasno, kje in kako naj bi do kršitve načel pravne države prišlo. Zato ravno odnos velike večine evropskih poslancev, ki so glasovali za, prispeva k spodkopavanju pravne države v EU in k nadaljnji politizaciji koncepta pravne države.
Kaj sploh je »volilna avtokracija«? Avtokracija je vladavina, kjer je oblast omejena na nekaj ljudi v državi. Torej bi »volilna avtokracija« pomenila, da ima volilno pravico na Madžarskem zelo majhna skupina ljudi. Toda na madžarskem imajo splošno volilno pravico, kandidirajo in glasujejo lahko vsi, svobodno se združujejo v politične stranke in koalicije, glasovanje ni odrekano nikomur. »Volilna avtokracija« na Madžarskem torej ne more biti dlje od resnice. Zato je pri evropskih poslancih, ki so glasovali za »poročilo« možno samo dvoje: ali so dojemljivi za lažna poročila in pokvarjeni do obisti ali so opravilno nesposobni in funkcionalno nepismeni.
Demokracija in svoboda na Madžarskem nista umrli ter, kot zdaj kaže, nikoli ne bosta. Madžarska je parlamentarna demokracija, volitve na Madžarskem so bile svobodne in poštene. Opazovalci volitev (ideološko levo opredeljeni) so imeli »pripombe« na medijsko pristranskost in nejasna pravila financiranja volitev. Kar je bilo spet zelo enostransko mnenje. Na Madžarskem je polovica medijev še vedno v lasti in pod vplivom leve opozicije, kar je, denimo, veliko več kot v Sloveniji (80 odstotkov medijev je naklonjenih levici). Če nek medij preneha izhajati, to ni zaradi vlade, ampak zato, ker je za bralce očitno tako nezanimiv, da se jim zdi škoda denarja, da bi ga plačevali. Prav tako pod Orbanovo oblastjo nobenega urednika ali novinarja niso sodno preganjali zaradi stališč in mnenj. Ljudje so se pač na volitvah večinsko odločili (in to je njihova pravica, da izberejo, kogar želijo) za Fidesz. Dobil je večino, kar pomeni tudi zelo stabilno vlado.
To, da je Madžarska izrazito usmerjena proti ilegalnim migracijam (nikakor ne proti resničnim beguncem, saj je na Madžarskem okoli 25.000 Ukrajincev, kar je po številu četrta država v EU), prepoveduje LGBT propagando v šolah, priznava biološka spola, postavlja madžarski narod, kulturo, jezik in tradicijo na prvo mesto v svoji državi ter želi s ciljno demografsko politiko povečati število avtohtonih Madžarov, je povsem legitimna konservativna politika (ob tem, da sploh nima tako strogih omejitev glede splava, saj ženska lahko prekine nosečnost do 12. tedna nosečnosti, istospolni pari so lahko registrirani kot partnerske zveze, vendar so istospolne poroke neveljavne). Vse to nima nikakršne zveze z »volilno avtokracijo«. Kar priznavajo celo levi analitiki: ni enotne definicije in ne splošnega konsenza med analitiki in političnimi strokovnjaki, kaj je »volilna avtokracija«, kot nekakšen hibridni politični sistem, ki ne zagotavlja minimalnih demokratičnih standardov.
Zato se zdi glasovanje evropskih poslancev o nečem, česar dobro ne razume nihče, tragikomično. Komično zato, ker poslanci izpadejo neartikulirano govoreči klovni, tragično zato, ker lahko Evropska komisija zaradi teh namišljenih obtožb odtegne Madžarski evropska sredstva. In na koncu: evropski poslanci so sami izpadli avtoritarni, saj s svojim delovanjem marginalizirajo večinsko mnenje in voljo madžarskega prebivalstva.
Tekst je bil prvič objavljen na spletni strani revije Demokracija.
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.
Osnutek poročila o »rasni pravičnosti, nediskriminaciji in proti rasizmu v Evropski uniji« (EU) vsebuje elemente, ki bodo uporabljeni za spodbujanje politik proti beli rasi in proti avtohtonim prebivalcem in narodom na stari celini, opozarja evropski poslanec Tom Vandendriessche, član Skupine za identiteto in demokracijo in tudi član Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve (LIBE), ki je poročilo pripravil.
Poslanec iz Belgije je za portal Breitbart razkril nekatere podrobnosti. Vsebina dokumenta se osredotoča na »strukturni in institucionaliziran rasizem«, Osnutek ima korenine v levičarski ideologiji in bo uporabljen za spodbujanje za politike, ki diskriminirajo etnične Evropejce, je prepričan: »Sistemski ali strukturni rasizem ne temelji na dejstvih, ampak je marksistična teorija.«
Osnutek poročila, ki je bil dokončan v začetku maja in interno objavljen pretekli teden, se na spletni strani Evropskega parlamenta težko najde. Ampak se najde. Preberete si ga lahko TUKAJ. Kdaj bo poročilo obravnavano in dokončno sprejeto, še ni znano.
Poročilo ogroženost posameznih avtohtonih nacionalnih kultur, tradicij in prebivalcev ne omenja. Pisano je tako, kot da so v Evropi že tisočletja živeli arabski narodi ali prebivalci Afrike. Poleg Romov naj bi bili ti najbolj ogroženi. Nasproti jim stoji zlobni beli človek, še posebej »skrajna desničarska čustva in ideologija«, ki predstavljajo resne izzive EU.
Izhodišče je, da se prizna »strukturno razsežnost rasizma, ki ima zgodovinske korenine vse do kolonializma in suženjstva«. LIBE mirno zapiše, da jih je na »pravo pot« usmerilo gibanje BLM. »V odgovor je bilo sprejetih veliko pozitivnih korakov. EU je nato sprejela več političnih dokumentov, vključno z Unijo enakosti: akcijski načrt EU za boj proti rasizmu 2020–2025 in vzpostavila položaj koordinatorja EU za boj proti rasizmu,« piše.
Jasno je zapisano, naj posamezne članice EU čimprej sprejmejo ukrepe in zakonodajo, ki bodo zaščitile žrtve rasizma, ter sprejele ali spremenile kazensko zakonodajo, ki bodo z vsemi sredstvi (umetno inteligenci, protiterorističnimi ukrepi in drugim nadzorom) preganjali tiste, ki ne bodo delovali in živeli tako, kot predvidevajo smernice za boj proti rasizmu in diskriminaciji ter za enakost spolov.
»To moramo končati tukaj in zdaj ter zagotoviti, da se bodo diskriminacija, strukturni in institucionalizirani rasizem, ki je zakoreninjen v zgodovini in je še danes zelo živ, resno obravnavali v naši EU. Pomembno je, da se rasizem in diskriminacija obravnavata z intersekcijskim pristopom, saj le takšen pristop lahko utre pot resničnim spremembam v družbi,« piše v osnutku poročila in s prstom kaže na avtohtone evropske narode, ki zavračajo, da bi sprejele invazivne kulture z drugih celin.
»Internet je postal prizorišče, kjer se storilci svobodno izražajo in nekaznovano delijo svoje sovraštvo. Čas je, da prek spleta naredimo konec divjemu zahodu,« je še zapisano, hkrati pa poročilo priznava, da je prav splet še edino mesto, kjer je vsaj delno uveljavljena svoboda govora. Toda očitno želi EU tudi to zatreti.
Osnutek poročila je le zadnji kamenček v progresivnem križarskem pohodu proti evropski tradiciji, zgodovini in kulturi, meni Vandendriessche. Bruselj očitno ne priznava, da je Evropa brez priseljencev in kultur z drugih delov sveta že dovolj raznolika.
Pozabite na vse, kar ste do zdaj slišali o srednjem veku. To obdobje, ki se je začelo leta 476 z razpadom Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva (konec starega veka) in se končalo leta 1492 z odkritjem Amerike, ni bilo tako temačno, kot so vas učili. Čeprav knjiga Samuela Gregga s provokativnim naslovom Za Boga in dobiček govori o vlogi, ki so jo kristjani odigrali pri razvoju modernih financ in bančništva, vas popelje tudi v življenje v svetu, ki je postavil gospodarske temelje zahodni civilizaciji, najveličastnejši civilizacije v zgodovini človeštva.
Knjiga raziskovalnega direktorja na Inštitutu Acton Gregga je rehabilitacija srednjega veka. Cerkev je v tem obdobju nedvomno odigrala veliko pozitivno vlogo, včasih sicer tudi sporno, a kakor se sliši čudno, jo je, v nasprotju s splošnim prepričanjem, skrbelo za revne, obsojala je oderuštvo. Krščanstvo je vsega začetka razmišljalo o denarju. Njihovi teologi, filozofi in finančniki so o njem podajali sodbe in mnenja. Imeli so velik vpliv na nastanek in razvoj nacionalnih in mednarodnih finančnih sistemov ter na komercialno revolucijo na začetku 11. stoletja, ki je pripomogla k sodobni misli o denarju in uporabi kapitala.
Finance srednjega veka so izhajale iz Svetega pisma in prilike o talentih. Apostol Matej pripoveduje (Mt 25,26-27), da mož z enim talentom (denarna enota), ki ga je Jezus grajal, ni izgubil prejetega denarja. Preprosto ni naredil ničesar z njim, zakopal ga je. Jezus je želel več. Zato srednjeveški misleci niso bili proti dobičku in kapitalu, ampak so spodbujali vlaganja, prvi klasični kapitalisti, ki so nastali v 11. stoletju v severni Italiji in Flandriji pa so imeli v zgornjem desnem kotu svojih računovodskih knjig napis v latinščini – Deus enim ef proficuum (Za Boga in dobiček). Prizadevanje za dobiček, sprejemanje poslovnega tveganja in ustvarjanje kapitala v srednjem veku namreč ni veljalo samo za gospodarsko koristno, ampak tudi kot način slavljenja Boga. Ljudje so s takim načinom življenja izpolnili navodilo iz Prve Mojzesove knjige, ko je Bog Adamu in Evi naročil: »Bodita rodovitna in množita se, napolnita zemljo in si jo podvrzita« (1 Mz 1,28). Povedano drugače. Kristjan lahko deluje in za Boga in za dobiček, seveda pod pogojem, da je Bog na prvem mestu in da je dobiček, dosežen s financami, razumljen kot sredstvo za dosego cilja in nikoli kot cilj sam po sebi ter je uporabljen, da služi za človeški razcvet in napredek, ne pa, da ga zmanjšuje.
Prve misli srednjega veka o financah so bile namenjene predvsem posojanju denarja in obrestim. Kljub temu, da je papež Urban III. posojanje denarja in zaračunavanje obresti označil kot greh namere, da dobiš nazaj več, kot si dal, je med krščanskimi teologi prevladalo prepričanja, da so zahteve po plačilu obresti na posojen denar upravičene, če (prvič) denar ni vrnjen pravočasno, (drugič) obstaja možnost, da posojilodajalec utrpi škodo, če dolžnik ni vrnil denarja, kot je določeno v pogodbi, (tretjič) posojilodajalec zamudi priložnost za ustvarjanje dobička in (četrtič) posojilodajalec tvega, da mu dolžnik ne bo poplačal dolga. Zato so misleci tistega časa kritizirali predvsem oderuštvo, ki je veljalo za resen greh in zlorabo revnih. Frančiškan, blaženi Bernardin iz Feltre, je tudi s prstom pokazal, kdo so največji oderuhi. To so bili judovski posojilodajalci. Za takratne mislece, ki se vprašanj denarja in bančništva niso lotevali kot ekonomisti, ampak so jih obravnavali v okviru moralne teologije in prava, je bilo namreč najpomembnejše jasno razločevanje med oderuštvom in legitimnimi oblikami posojanja denarja.
Avtor Samuel Gregg, doktor moralne filozofije in politične ekonomije z Oxforda, bralcu ne predstavi samo pogled na bančništvo in denar v srednjem veku, ampak tudi takratno življenje. Po razpadu Zahodnega rimskega cesarstva je sicer sledilo obdobje zastoja, ki pa je bilo bolj posledica podedovane grške in rimske kulture, kot pa domnevno mračnjaškega zgodnjega srednjega veka. Tako se je denimo v tistem času, nekje do 10. stoletja, število prebivalcev drastično zmanjšalo. Padec števila ni bil posledica epidemij ali množičnega pomanjkanja hrane, temveč preprostega dejstva, da je prebivalstvo še vedno sprejemalo poganske prakse, kot so splav, kontracepcija in detomor. »Krščanstvo je tudi ženski podelilo dostojanstvo,« piše Gregg, kar je zmotno s splošnim prepričanjem o malodane suženjski vlogi ženske v srednjem veku.
In ko je krščanstvo dokončno prevladalo na stari celini, je bil možen tudi razvoj, ki se je začel na prelomu prvega v drugo tisočletje. Gregg ga imenuje komercialna in finančna revolucija.
»Rast prebivalstva in tehnoloških inovacij (kot je uporaba strojev v kmetijstvu in manufakturi) do intenzivnejšega poljedelstva. To je omogočilo razmah proizvodnje, industrije, trgovine in najpomembneje: presežek kapitala. Kapitala, ki ga je bilo mogoče uporabiti za vlaganja in je lahko pomagal družbi napredovati iz samooskrbnega gospodarstva,« pravi avtor. Nastale so cvetoče poslovne skupnosti v severni Italiji, Flandriji, delih Francije in južni Angliji. Pojavila se je trgovina med evropskimi deželami, nadnacionalna delitev dela in nov razred podjetnikov, vzporedno se je pojavilo več finančnih instrumentov, ki so trgovcem pomagali urejevati tveganja. Razmahnilo se je bančništvo. V 13. stoletju je bilo v Firencah kar 38 neodvisnih bank, v Pisi 34, v Genovi 27 in v Benetkah 18. Skupaj jih je bilo v italijanskih mestnih državicah 173. Večina teh je imela podružnice v tujini. Leta 1231 je v Angliji denimo delovalo 69 podružnic italijanskih bank. Vse to, piše Gregg, je bil embrij tistega, iz česar je nekaj stoletij kasneje nastala ena temeljnih knjig politične ekonomije – Bogastvo narodov Adama Smitha.
Proti koncu srednjega veka je torej Evropa že imela vse tiste značilnosti, ki jih danes povezujemo s kapitalizmom. Slika tega obdobja, kot jo riše Gregg, ki ima dar za preprosto razlaganje zapletenih pojmom in postopkov ter razkrivanje dolgo skritih resnic (z navedbami številnih virov), je popolnoma drugačna od ustaljenih predstav o »mračnjaškem« srednjem veku. Tudi glede zasebne lastnine. Zahodna Evropa, ki je kasneje še dolgom ostala globoko religiozna, je zasebno lastnino razumela tako, da daje posameznikom in skupnosti sposobnost mobilizacije bogastva za spodbujanje dobrega. Pravi kristjani so »morali« del pridobljenega bogastva porabiti za dobrodelne namene. Od njih se je namreč vedno pričakovalo, da bodo dajali miloščino. A zasebna lastnina, denar, premoženje in bogastvo posameznikov ni bilo demonizirano, ampak je kazalo na človekovo sposobnost, da uresniči darove, ki jih je posamezniku dal Bog. Že italijanski filozof in redovnik Tomaž Akvinski (13. stoletje) je učil, da se korist za vse lahko uresniči le skozi zasebno lastnino. Zato je podal tri razloge. Prvič, ljudje bolje skrbijo za tisto, kar je njihovo; drugič, če bi bili vsi odgovorni za vse, bi bila zmeda; in tretjič, delitev stvari, ki so skupne, ustvari napetost.
O tem, kako so kristjani dojemali denar in bančništvo v preteklosti, je Samuel Gregg začel razmišljati po globalni finančni krizi leta 2008. S študijem zgodovine, različnih virov in tudi politično nekorektnih avtorjev je prišel do spoznanja, da so kristjani na različne načine pomagali razviti finančne in bančne sisteme, ki so pomagali milijonom ljudem ubežati revščini. Zato se tudi kritično loti sodobnih financ, še posebej zadnje krize, ko so tudi kristjani podlegli splošnemu prepričanju, da je na tem področju potrebno več regulative. Gregg piše, da gre za povsem legitimne zahteve, a sam dvomi, da bi zaostritev zakonodaje lahko pripomogla k izboljšanju razmer. Še več. Mnoge od zahtev bi vse skupaj še poslabšale in bi kršile načelo pravičnosti. Gregg meni, da ljudje pozabljajo, da niso krive finance, temveč ljudje, ki se z njimi ukvarjajo. Oni lahko z (ne)namernimi napakami ogrozijo predvsem blaginjo revnih, starih in drugih, ki živijo na obrobju družbe, ter tako spodkopljejo razmere, ki pomagajo vsem napredovati. Brez financ (in ljudi, ki se nanje spoznajo) bi človeštvu ostala samooskrbna gospodarstva, ki bi zmanjšala možnosti za človeški razcvet. »Živeli bi v družbah, v katerih bi prav ljudje na robu družbe imeli še manj možnosti, da bi ušli revščini, medtem ko bi tudi bolj premožni imeli manj gospodarskih sredstev za pomoč bližnjim v stisku,« piše Gregg.
V zvezi s tem na koncu knjige nameni kritiko sedanjim vladam, ki bi rade težave reševale z zadolževanjem, ker s tem obremenjujejo prihodnje generacije, na račun katerih živijo sedanje. Tudi ideja, da bi svet v izogib prihodnjim finančnim krizam dobil nekakšno svetovno centralno banko, nekakšno globalno avtoriteto, ki bo lahko sprejemala odločitve o tem, kar kristjani imenujejo »univerzalno skupno dobro«, se mu ne zdi sprejemljiva, čeprav sodobni katoliški družbeni nauk take avtoritete ne izključuje. Po njegovem bi bila ustanovitev globalne banke v nasprotju s krščansko tradicijo, poleg tega bi povzročila številne težave, ki jih lahko opazujemo pri centralnem bančnem organu EU, se pravi pri Evropski centralni banki, ko določa enotne obrestne mere za tako različna gospodarstva, kot so Grčija, Irska ali Nemčija. Že nacionalne centralne banke imajo težave pri »ugibanju«, kakšna naj bi bila optimalna količina posojil v obtoku, kaj šele svetovna. Tudi Friedrich Hayek je dejal, da bi se morali spet ozreti k izjemnim predhodnikom moderne ekonomije pred več stoletji, ko so učenjaki poudarjali, da je matematična cena odvisna od veliko posameznik okoliščin. »Človek je nikoli ne more poznati, ampak jo lahko pozna samo Bog,« se na Hayeka sklicuje Gregg, ki ga med vrsticami lahko beremo tudi tako, da s tem nasprotuje kakršnimkoli oblikam svetovne vlade ali vlade EU. Po njegovo bi morala imeti taka ustanova božanske sposobnosti. »In če si smrtniki prizadevajo za vsemogočnost, je to norost,« zaključi in pozove kristjane, naj se etičnih in gospodarskih vprašanj, povezanih s financami, »lotevajo z znatno mero ponižnosti«.
Pred letom dni sem objavil govor finskega intelektualca Kai Murrosa. Zaradi aktualnosti ga objavljam še enkrat:
»Črni oblaki se zgrinjajo nad Evropo. Elita je Evropo popolnoma izdala tujcem. Razsežnosti te zarote so brez primere v zgodovini človeštva. Vladajoča elita se je izkazala kot koruptiven lakaj globalnega kapitalizma. Ti visoko cenovni paraziti so Evropejcem ukradli preživetje, zemljo, prihodnost in samozavest. Ti prostituti korporacijskega sveta so Evropo izpostavili neskončnemu divjanju brutalnih beračev in Evropejcem odvzeli vsakršno možnost obrambe. Postali smo nemočni, izgubili smo nadzor nad svojimi življenji, odrekli so nam naše mesto v svetu in naš duh upada. Kar je bilo nekoč naše, nam je bilo odvzeto in dano pohlepnim tujcem, kar smo nekoč imeli za svetinjo, temu se arogantni vsiljivci posmehujejo, kar nam je bilo nekoč poznano, je zdaj degenerirano v nekaj neznanega in grozečega.
Desetletja so bile generacije Evropejcev vzgajane, naj sovražijo sami sebe, da čutijo uničujočo krivdo belega človeka. Evropejci so bili ves čas opominjani, da se lahko za grehe svoje civilizacije odkupijo s samouničevanjem. Smrt Evrope je postala dnevna moda, naš propad simbol napredka, razpad tradicionalne Evrope pot naprej, plenilska invazija proti Evropi so najnovejši trend, sovraštvo samega sebe je postalo gotov znak intelektualnega razmišljanja. Pozvani smo, da praznujemo fizičen, intelektualen, kulturen in duhoven kolaps naše civilizacije.
Oprali so nam možgane, da verjamemo, da je kolaps neizogiben in da je zakon narave, da izumremo in da barbarske horde pred našimi vrati zmagajo. Pod krinko liberalizma, humanizma in demokracije so Evropejce prepričali, naj storijo etnični samomor. Rasa, ki je dosegla tako veliko in preživela, je bila preslepljena, da sama pozdravlja svoj padec in da aktivno poseže po ukrepih, da bi postali tujci na svoji zemlji. Priča smo najbolj zlobni in kruti zaroti v zgodovini človeštva, zaroti zamenjave Evropejcev, sistematični kampanji izbrisa Evropejcev s socialnim degradiranjem ljudstva ter potem z mentalno in fizično retardacij paralizirati možnost ljudstva, da se upre. Priča smo zastrupljanju prav tistega biološkega porekla, kjer so rasla dobra dela preteklosti zato, da čredo kastrirancev na koncu lažje potolčejo do smrti. Nekoč je bila ponosna rasa bojevnikov, obrtnikov in raziskovalcev.
A vendar, kakor gre razkroj naprej, bo kruta realnost življenja Evropejce prisilila, da odprejo oči. Pokazali jim bomo, naj cel svet ve, da Evropejci zavračajo smrt. Naj bo jasno vsem, da se Evropejci ne bodo več opravičevali in da se ne bodo več umikali. Šli bomo dlje kot kadarkoli prej.«
Ne, ni slovnična napaka, prav ste prebrali – muftikulturnost oziroma muftikultularizem. Pojem je nedavno na spletni strani Boulevard Voltarire uporabil francoski arhitekt Jean-Louis Chollet. Gre za koncept, kjer se klasična multikulturnost, ki so jo Evropejci doživljali le kot eksotiko drugih kultur pred svojim pragom (denimo v obliki kitajskih restavracij), spremeni v ultimativno multikulturnost z islamom na čelu, se pravi muftikulturnost.
Multikulturnost je (v ožjem smislu pojmovanja) desetletja nazaj pomenila ohranjanje etnične identitete neke skupnosti v novi državi, v katero so prišli iz različnih razlogov, a hkrati spoštovanje univerzalnih in skupnih vrednot ter zakonov države gostiteljice. Pred nekaj več kot četrt stoletja se je kot levičarska politična agenda pojavil pojem multikulturalizem, ki je zanikal, da bi neka država temeljila na skupnih vrednotah (evropske države večinoma temeljijo na vladavini prava, krščanski tradiciji in človekovih pravicah), ampak da imajo različne kulture različne vrednote, ki so med seboj enakopravne, zato je treba upoštevati vse. Multikulturalizem namreč predvideva različne podlage za medkulturni dialog, kar je že privedlo do sprejemanja neevropskih in barbarskih praks (zatiranja žensk, poroke z mladoletnimi, mnogoženstvo in podobno). In ni naključje, da se je vzpon multikulturalizma pojavil z začetkom invazije islama na staro celino, ki se nekako sovpada s sprejemom islamske deklaracije o človekovih pravicah, ki je bolj znana kot Kairska deklaracija. Islam od takrat naprej (za razliko od drugih etničnih skupnosti v zahodnoevropskih državah) ni več želel samo pravice do mirnega sobivanja, ohranjanja identitete, svobodnega izražanja vere ali enako obravnavo pred zakonom, ampak je imel v imenu
človekovih pravic konkretne politične zahteve, želel je modele življenja v arabskih državah prakticirati v novem okolju, se pravi na stari celini. V tem času so se pojavile tako imenovane no-go cone, geografsko zaokrožene celote na obrobju velikih mest, kjer je islam uveljavljal svoja pravila na podlagi šeriatskega prava. Oblasti so ravno v imenu multikulturalizma tako početje dopustile in še dopuščajo.
Danes je tako popuščanje privedlo do muftikulturalizma, ki so mu na podlagi pritiskov nevladnih organizacij, raznih društev za človekove pravice in levičarskih političnih grupacij podlegle številne vlade v Evropi. Druge etnične skupnosti so postale popolnoma neopazne, marginalne in kolaterarnaškoda, v ospredju je zdaj zgolj islam. Imami in muftiji po Evropi pridigajo in grozijo, da bo stara celina prej ali slej postala muslimanska, da islam ni le enakovredna evropski kulturi, ampak superiornejša. In namesto, da bi se temu uprli (dokler se še lahko), se najvidnejši politiki dobivajo v Parizu, Rimu ali Berlinu in državljanom s pomočjo medijskega mainstreama razlagajo, da je največja grožnja globalno segrevanje.
Brez skrbi, podnebne spremembe bomo preživeli. V zgodovini Zemlje je vedno prihajalo do njih, gre za naravni ciklus planeta. Islamizacije Evrope najbrž ne bomo. Ne samo zato, ker bi nam bila vsiljena islamska vera, ampak tudi zato, ker imata obe kulturi različno sposobnost za socialni, moralni in tehnološki napredek. Islamu sicer ne gre odrekati nekaterih odkritij in inovacij (predvsem na področju medicine in astronomije), a je kot tak ostal v času pred 15. stoletjem. Muslimanska kultura namreč nima sposobnosti, da je iz generacijo v generacijo boljša in naprednejša, kot je primer zahodne. Zato je vse, kar muslimani prinašajo v Evropo, družbena mračnjaškost, tehnološka kamena doba, politično barbarstvo in verski fanatizem. In to je agenda muftikulturnosti.
Kavarna Hayek 
