Čeprav iz Bruslja po zmagi desnega bloka s konservativno suverenistično stranko Giorgie Meloni na čelu prihajajo spravljivejši toni, je med vodilnimi uradniki Evropske unije vendarle čutiti nelagodje in strah. Kot da ne bi vedeli, da ljudje ne menjajo konja brez tehtnih razlogov. Italijani so ga.
Najprej je pod vprašajem načrt predsednice Evropske komisije Ursule von der Leyen, da v svojem mandatu spravi pod streho nekakšno nadnacionalno kazensko zakonodajo, po kateri bi bil »sovražni govor« (nasprotovanje migracijam, teoriji spolov, prepoved istospolnih porok in drugim postmodernističnim vrednotam) označen kot zločin proti EU (kar je napovedala decembra lani). Težava je, da je za sprejetje potrebno popolno soglasje članic EU, po volitvah v Italiji pa so zdaj že štiri nacionalne vlade, ki bodo temu zagotovo nasprotovale (Švedska, Poljska, Madžarska in Italija).
S tem je povezana še ena skrb. Bruselj se je začel obnašati, kot da je sedež federativne skupnosti držav. Ne samo na ekonomskem področju, ampak se je z nepremišljenimi izjavami in potezami začel vmešavati v demografijo, izobraževanje, pravosodje, zdravstvo in celo v socialno politiko držav, domišlja si, da je celo nad ustavami posameznih članic. In Giorgia Meloni je zdaj še ena od voditeljic, ki je Italijanom obljubila povrnitev suverene države. To predvsem pomeni, da EU vidi v njeni izvorni obliki in poslanstvu: kot evropsko ekonomsko skupnost s prostim trgom, ki ima klasične in krščanske vrednostne in kulturne korenine. In nikakor ne kot evropsko skupnost z novodobnimi vrednotami, ki si jih Bruselj sproti izmišlja. Ja, Melonijeva je konservativna in suverenistka.
Če je Bruselj ponudil roko obetajoči se novi vladi v Rimu, češ da bo sodeloval z vsako vlado, ki so jo izvolili Italijani, se prevladujoči mediji (po pravilu nagnjeni k levici) nikakor ne morejo sprijazniti z zmago 45-letne Rimljanke. Pravzaprav je težko prešteti, kolikokrat sta se v povezavi z Melonijevo pojavili besedi fašizem in fašistka (zagotovo večkrat, kot se v povezavi s Švedskimi demokrati ali AfD pojavi nacizem). Kar ni nič novega. Za levico je znano, da rada reciklira stare anateme in reproducira »ad Mussolinium«, kot pravi francoska kolumnistka Marie d’Armagnac. Levičarji fašisti razprpdajajo po vseh velikostih in barvah, izbira je neverjetna: parafašisti, metafašisti, profašisti, prafašisti, nacifašisti, retrofašisti, subfašisti, geofašisti in tako naprej. Katerakoli predpona se prilega. A največkrat so uporabili dve: da je Melonijeva neofašistka in da je postfašistka. Celo isti avtorji so mestoma uporabljali obe. Kar kaže na nepismenost ali vsaj nerazumevanje pojmov: neo in post ni enako. Če si neo, nisi post. In če si post, nisi neo. »Treba se bo, prijatelji, usesti za mizo in odločiti: ali post ali neo,« piše d’Armagnacova.
Tovrstno psovanje je vse, kar zmorejo progresivni mediji. Kakopak, če bi korektno povzeli program, ki ga je Melonijeva sestavila s koalicijskim desnim blokom, bi obstajala resna nevarnost, da bi bralci ali gledalci vstali in rekli: »To je to. To je zdrava pamet, ne fašizem. To je, kar želimo.« Zato si na kratko oglejmo program italijanske desnice, in sicer takega, kot v resnici je.
Najprej gospodarstvo. Vanj se, kot prava desnica, koalicija ne bo vtikala. Še več. Z davčno reformo ga bo razbremenila (posledično tudi gospodinjstva). »Več kot zaposlujete, manj plačate davkov,« je geslo. To pomeni večjo produktivnost in večji BDP ter na koncu zmanjševanje velikega italijanskega dolga in ozdravitev proračunske bilance. Znižali bodo davke za družine, mala in srednja podjetja ter (za razliko od Slovenije) samozaposlene.
Evropska sredstva bodo porabili za posodobitev infrastrukture in začetek velikih del, zlasti mostu čez Mesinsko ožino, ki povezuje Sicilijo s celino.
Predvsem bodo znižali in zmanjšali socialne pomoči. Uvedli bodo državljanski dohodek, ki naj bi nezaposlene spodbudil k iskanju zaposlitve, pa jih odvračal, kot so k temu pripomogle socialne pomoči na vse konce.
Koalicija se bo lotila tudi reforme pravosodja in javne uprave (manj regulacije in večja učinkovitost), spremeniti želi tudi ustavo; uvesti želi polpredsedniški politični sistem kot kombinacijo predsedniškega in parlamentarnega po vzoru Francije, da bi se odpravila politična nestabilnost, ki je nekako značilna za vse povojne vlade v Italiji. Začeli naj bi s tem, da bi predsednika volili neposredno.
Ena od prioritet bo nova demografska politika, saj naj bi bilo po projekcijah do leta 2050 v Italiji kar 8 milijonov avtohtonih Italijanov manj. Gre za dolgoročno vizijo ustvarjanja pro-družinske politike po vzoru Madžarske in Poljske.
Na področju mednarodne politike bo nova vlada ščitila nacionalne interese Italije, zlasti pri reševanju energetske krize. To bo tudi središče zunanje politike: zaščita nacionalnega interesa in obramba domovine. Nikakor se koalicija ne bo podredila in sprejela »nove« vrednote, ki jih ponuja Bruselj. Program je skladen zavezam Nata ob napadu Rusije na Ukrajino, ne izključujejo »kakršnekoli diplomatske pobude, namenjene rešitvi konflikta«.
Na koncu še migracije. Obnovljeni bodo odloki o »varnosti in priseljevanju«, ki jih je uvedel Mateo Salvini, ko je bil minister za notranje zadeve. V ta namen se bo povečalo število policijskih enot, ki bodo imele naloge: obramba državnih in evropskih meja, kot zahteva EU z novim paktom za migracije in azil; poostren mejni nadzor in blokiranje ladij z ilegalnimi migranti; v dogovor s severnoafriškimi državami bodo ustavili trgovino z ljudmi. Predvsem si želijo, da se ustanovijo »žariščne točke« izven meja Evropske unije, kjer bi preučevali prošnje za azil, in da kriminalni ilegalni migranti in azilanti prestajajo zaporne kazni v državah, od koder so prišli v Evropsko unijo.
Desna koalicija ima v programu celo nekaj levičarskega, ki je daleč stran od konservativnega: migrantskim otrokom olajšati pridobitev italijanskega državljanstva, homoseksualnim parom ponuditi enake starševske pravice kot heteroseksualnim zakonskim zvezam. Obljubljajo celo viške kazni za diskriminacijo LGBT skupnosti, a hkrati tudi zaustavitev pregona medijev, ki niso naklonjeni migracijam in LGBT agendi.
To je na kratko program italijanskega desnega političnega bloka, ki bo (najbrž) sestavil vlado. Ali gre res za fašizem ali ne, naj bralec presodi sam. Mogoče mu bo v pomoč izvirni fašistični program (fašistični manifest). Zmaga konservativcev v Italiji je dokaz, da so šli »prebujeni« z EU predaleč: silili so ljudi v liberalno demokracijo, ki je ponujala več spolov, poselitev Evrope s priseljenci iz tretjega sveta, socialo brez omejitev, visoke davke in oblikovanje bruseljske elite, ki bi nadzorovala in vodila narode Evrope. Zato je v Italiji s programom bistvenih reform zmagala zdrava pamet.
Tekst je bil prvič objavljen na spletni strani revije Demokracija (27. september 2022).
Domoljubna aktivista francoske Generacije identitete sta bila obsojena zaradi domnevnih žalitev ilegalnih migrantov januarja 2021.
Študentka iz Toulousa in drugi aktivist Génération identitaire Jérémie Piano sta bila obsojena na dva oziroma štiri mesece zapora in plačilo 3.000 oziroma 4.000 evrov globe zaradi izjav in objave videoposnetkov protimigrantske akcije, ki sta jo s kolegi izvedla 20. januarja v Pirenejih na španski meji. Piano je bil po operaciji Defend Europe Pyrénées preganjan zaradi »spodbujanja sovraštva, nasilja in diskriminacije neevropskih migrantov«. Med drugim je izjavil, da so bili med nezakonitimi priseljenci, ki so prečkali Col du Portillon, »verjetno tatovi, posiljevalci in potencialni teroristi«.
Thaïs Descufon pa je bila preganjana v isti zadevi in je bila na prvi stopnji obsojena zaradi »spodbujanja sovraštva«. Mlado dekle je izjavilo, da je »škandalozno, da lahko nezakoniti migrant prečka mejo pri Col du Portillon v Pirenejih in da je treba to nevarnost jemati zelo resno«.
Organizacija SOS Racisme, ki je vložila tožbo, po oprostilni sodbi na drugi stopnji ne bo prejela niti centa, so zapisali v ASLA, ki brani svobodo izražanja.
Na Okrajnem sodišču v Ljubljani se je danes zaključila obravnava v zadevi Škorčeva glosa. Z nekdanjim zunanjim sodelavcem Demokracije Aleksandrom Škorcem sva bila obsojena na pogojno kazen: Škorc je dobil pet mesecev zapora oziroma dve leti pogojno, jaz pol leta zapora oziroma dve leti pogojno. Že to, da sem jaz dobil večjo kazen kot avtor zapisa, kaže, da je bil sam proces zaradi satiričnega zapisa politično in ideološko motiviran. Glavni tarči pogroma sta bili revija Demokracija in stranka SDS (solastnica revije), ki imata jasen odklonilen odnos do ilegalnih migracij.
sredi decembra 2020, na vrhuncu medijskega pogroma zoper revijo Demokracija, gospoda Škorca in mene, sem napisal komentar. »Hvaležen Bogu za to, kar se je zgodilo,« je bil naslov. Zapisal sem, da sem hvaležen Bogu, da sem videl in doživel to, kar živemu človeku ne bi verjel, da je sploh mogoče. Potem so prišle ovadbe. Potem je policija potrkala na moja domača vrata. Potem je prišla obtožnica. Potem se je začelo sojenje, ki se danes končuje.
Rad bi izrazil začudenje nad dvema zadevama. Prva je, da je vse skupaj sploh prišlo tako daleč. Iskreno sem mislil, da naju tožilstvo ne bo preganjalo. Ampak tak manjši pogrom sem že doživel. Gospod Branimir Štrukelj me je civilno tožil, ker sem v nekem komentarju zapisal, da bi sindikaliste kar popipsal. Seveda je bila to metafora, nikakor ni bilo mišljeno, da bi vzel zares ogromno pločevinko pipsa in šel nad gospoda Štruklja. Tudi gospod Škorc se je igral z besedami, kar je za rubriko, za katero je pisal, nuja (ni pa seveda pravilo). In že takrat je bilo jasno, da gre za gloso, ki je bila kot taka tudi jasno označena. Ampak ostalo je tako, kot se je začelo. Kot se spomnim, je bil Škorčev zapis najprej objavljen na družbenem omrežju Twitter. In če se prav spomnim, ga je objavil eden od zaposlenih na RTV Slovenija. Določeni deli so bili podčrtani z rdečo, ta objava se je potem širila z bliskovito naglico. Seveda ni nihče napisal, v kateri rubriki revije je bilo to objavljeno. To me je spomnilo na primer čez lužo, ko je neka spletna stran objavila, da voditelji CNN na namesto teleprompterja uporabljajo boben iz pralnega stroja. Kar je sledilo, je bilo komično. Cela vrsta spletnih strani, ki se ukvarjajo s preverjanjem dejstev, je informacijo označila za napačno. Oglasil se je celo Facebook, ki je spletni strani zagrozil z blokado. Kasneje so se opravičili, češ da bi morali vedeti, da je informacijo objavila satirična spletna stran BabylonBee. V mojem primeru se je zgodilo naslednje: še preden sem utegnil pojasniti, da je to glosa, da je to peti del neke celote, je bila kepa gonje že na pol brega, velika toliko, da se je ni dalo več ustaviti. To je bil pogrom kot iz učbenika Saula Alinskega.
Druga zadeva, ki me čudi, je odnos medijev do zadeve. Glede na to, koliko se je o tem pisalo, je skrajno nenavadno, da sojenje nobenega ne zanima. Niti na eni obravnavi ni bilo medija, pa toliko so imeli takrat za povedati, dobesedno v živo so se javljali. Nimam druge razlage kot te, da je bila revija Demokracija orodje političnega boja proti desnosredinski opciji, ki je takrat vodila vlado. Še posebej, ker je SDS solastnica medija. In to se je ves čas ponavljalo. Tudi predlagane priče tožilstva, ki so vložile ovadbe, so bile po mojem vedenju bodisi aktivno vključene v protivladne proteste bodisi so proteste javno podpirale. Ene od teh ni bilo, ker smo se strinjali, da ni nujno da zaslišimo vse. Govorim o ljubljanskem županu Zoranu Jankoviću, ki je nekoč že tožil satirika – karikaturista Mikija Mustra.
Res si nikoli nisem mislil, da bom v samostojni Sloveniji, ki je vsaj na deklarativni ravni svobodna in demokratična država, ki priznava temeljne človekove pravice in svoboščine, med katerimi je svoboda govora na prvem mestu, doživel, da oblast oziroma država preganja ljudi zaradi zapisanih mnenj in stališč, še posebej, če gre za gloso, mestoma zabavno, mestoma cinično in do dogajanj v družbi kritično novinarsko zvrst, ki ima posebno obliko in metodo izražanja. Ne samo to. Inkriminirana glosa gospoda Škorca je bila objavljena na straneh v reviji, ki so temu namenjene in je bila jasno označena kot glosa. Kot tako so jo prepoznali naši bralci, kot tako so jo navajeni brati, kar potrjujejo tudi rezultati raziskave zadovoljstva med bralci revije Demokracija.
Na kratko o Škorčevi glosi. Če preberete Presežke, boste videli, da se loteva aktualnih odprtih vprašanj. In glosa je odziv na neukrepanje takratne vlade glede ilegalnih migracij: če vlada to ne more urediti, bo pač Bog, ki bo obračunal z vsemi slabimi ljudmi. In gospod Škorc je to napisal v jeziki in stilu, ki je zanj značilen. Kot takega ga naši redni bralci poznajo, za razliko od prič tožilstva, ki vsi po vrsti niso redni bralci. Jaz povsem verjamem, da je zapis koga zmotil, mogoče se mu je zdel neokusen, ampak ljudje različno razmišljamo, imamo različna mnenja in stališča, ljudje različne stvari različno dojemamo. In to je za družbo dobro. Predstavljate si družbo, kjer bi vsi ljudje o isti stvari enako razmišljali in jo dojemali. Kako bi imenovali to družbo ali državo? Jaz ne bi želel živeti v taki družbi, te uniformnosti bi me bilo resnično strah. To, da je Škorčeva glosa koga šokirala, vznemirila, mogoče celo užalila, to je v samem središču ustavnopravnega varstva svobode govora. O tem pogosto piše na IUS INFO, denimo, ustavni pravnik dr. Teršek. »Ne zato,« pravi dr. Teršek, »ker bi bilo takšno izražanje dobro, ampak zato, ker je v jedru ustavnopravnega varstva svobode izražanja prav takšno – žaljivo, vznemirjajoče in šokantno – izražanje.« To je bistvo. In danes se nekoga preganja samo zato, ker se je nekomu nekaj zazdelo, da bi to lahko bil tako imenovani sovražni govor.
Na kratko o pričah, ki so bile zaslišane. Gospa ali gospodična Prošek, ki je trdila, da to ni glosa, a hkrati ni znala definirati novinarske zvrsti, in je dejala, da Demokracije ne jemlje resno, ker to zanjo ni resen medij, saj je strankarska tiskovina, se je počutila ogroženo zaradi besedne zveze »božja kazen«, čeprav je samo nekaj sekund kasneje izjavila, da je ta besedna zveza ni prestrašila. Gospod Matjaž Šiška se je počutil užaljenega, a hkrati vse tiste, ki verjamejo v poslednjo sodbo, označil za skrajneže. Za ti dve priči obstaja zelo velika verjetnost, da zapisa sploh ne bi nikoli opazili, če o tem ne bi pisali na družbenih omrežjih. Jasno je, da nista redna bralca, pravzaprav sploh nista bralca, revije Demokracija, saj ne poznata ne ustroja, ne rubrik revije. Iz njunih pričevanj je bilo razvidno samo to, da sta bila užaljena in zgrožena.
Dr. Vezjak je bil malo bolj artikuliran, ampak tudi on pozna Demokracijo samo s spleta in ne morem se z njim strinjati, da Škorčev zapis ni glosa. Kakšno pa je njegovo sklepanje, se je videlo, ko je Demokraciji očital, da je izdala knjigo Posmrtno poročilo dr. Toma Sunića in ga tudi na pogovornem večeru tisti dan gostila. Po Vezjakovo naj bi bil ekstremist. In na koncu je dr. Vezjak dodal, da je očitno tak profil tudi profil bralcev Demokracije. Kar prepovedal bi in preganjal vse bralce Demokracije, ali kaj?
Dr. Tom Sunić je nekdanji diplomat, akademik, predavatelj na uglednih univerzah po svetu, njegova družina je bila v nekdanji državi obsojena po 133. členu. Vezjaka moti predvsem to, da je predstavnik Nove desnice in oster nasprotnik migracij. Je to nelegitimno mnenje? Je dokaz, da je Demokracija gostila Sunića, dokaz, da Demokracija razpihuje rasno sovraštvo? Ali je bolj verjetno, ker na Demokraciji zastopamo konservativni (desni) svetovni nazor, je Demokracija avtomatično kriva?
V vsakem trenutku zgodovine so obstajala stališča, ki so bila označena za družbo nevarna. In tako je očitno tudi sedanje mnenje tožilstva glede glose gospoda Škorca. A v vsakem trenutku zgodovine so obstajali ljudje, predvsem v akademskih in medijskih krogih, ki so stali pokončno in branili svoja stališča. Ne glede na spore in simpatije, je bila svoboda govora vedno tisti vzgon, ki je gnal naprej, da smo kot človeštvo šli v znanju tako daleč, kot še nikoli prej. Žal ugotavljam, da sva s Škorcem postala žrtvi novega koncepta, ki ne ogroža le človeško bit in svobodo govora, ampak tudi svobodo nasploh. Drago tožilstvo, opažam, da ste pripravljeni iti zelo daleč, da bi ugodili zahtevam tistih, ki želijo to uničiti.
Mene skrbi nekaj drugega, tega, ker se v Bruslju že pripravlja nekaj zlohotnega in da bodo to morale sprejeti vse države članice, implementirati v svoje kazenske zakonike. Dve leti nazaj je ECRI (Evropska komisija za boj proti rasizmu in nestrpnosti pri Svetu Evrope) objavila nekaj poročil, tudi za Slovenijo. In tam je bila, kakopak, omenjena tudi Demokracija. Poročilo je bilo enostransko, ker se je sklicevalo samo na slovenske organizacije in združenja, ki so nasprotnega svetovnega nazora kot je revija Demokracija. Ampak, dobro, to sploh ni bilo moteče. Veste, kaj so tudi zapisali? Zgražali so se nad slovenskim 297. členom kazenskega zakonika, češ da ne omogoča dovolj obsodb. V poročilu je bilo tudi obžalovanje, da se je Slovenija po osamosvojitvi odpovedala 133. členu Kazenskega zakonika SFRJ, saj bi bilo s tisto formulacijo »verbalnega delikta« preganjanje sovražnega govora lažje. S kolegom Vasletom sva se takrat odzvala na to pismo in jih povprašala, če sploh vedo, kaj so zapisali.
Kot je čas tekel naprej, je Evropska komisija s predsednico Ursulo von der Leyen v začetku decembra lani začela s pripravami na sprejem razširjenega seznama ´zločinov EU´ oziroma ´zločinov proti EU´. Čeprav se seznam šele oblikuje in ni dokončen, je že zdaj jasno, da bo tako imenovani ´sovražni govor´, kamor bo spadalo tudi nasprotovanje migracijam, ki se jih dotika Škorčeva glosa, opredeljeno kot »posebej hudo kaznivo dejanje«, ki spodkopava vrednote EU. Hvala Bogu, da postopek sprejema ni tako enostaven in da bo na koncu odločal Svet EU, kjer bo potrebno popolno soglasje vlad držav članic. Ampak že sam namen je strašljiv, saj se predlaga sprejem dela kazenske zakonodaje, ki bi bil za članice obvezujoč. Že danes se dogaja, da v Nemčiji h kritikom migracij vdirajo specialne policijske enote, da na Nizozemskem kritike obravnavajo protiteroristične agencije. Si morate misliti, protiteroristične? Že v primeru Škorčeve glose je policija (po katerem navodilu, tega ne vem) februarja lani istočasno potrkala na vrata domov meni, gospodu Škorcu in takrat tudi mojemu namestniku Metodu Berlecu, kot da bi bili glavni dilerji z drogo. Naključje? Težko verjamem. Kakšna je verjetnost, da bi bili tisto popoldne vsi trije osumljeni doma? To je bilo organizirano zastraševanje.
Imam sicer še več pripomb na tožilstvu, a na srce bi jim rad za zaključek položil eno stvar. Ker sem bil takrat direktor Novih obzorij, je iz policije prišel zahtevek o številu naročnikov, o prodani nakladi. To sem posredoval, a jasno označil kot poslovno skrivnost. Tega tožilstvo ni upoštevalo in v obtožnici to javno objavilo. Naj bo tožilstvo v prihodnje s takimi zadevami, ko zasebno podjetje nekaj označi za poslovno skrivnost, bolj previdno. Ne vem, kakšna škoda je nastala.
Na koncu naj ponovim še enkrat. Ne počutim se krivega in to gloso bi še enkrat objavil.«
Včeraj je v trgovskem središču Emporia v švedskem mestu Malmö streljal najstnik. Ubit je bil en moški, eno žensko so ranjeno pripeljali v bolnišnico. Policija je sporočila, da je bilo streljanje del obračuna med tolpami, precej sramežljivo pa so mediji objavili, da je bil najstnik migrant in da so obračunavale migrantske bande.
Malmö je mesto, ki je za avtohtone Švede izgubljeno. V njem živijo pripadniki 183 različnih narodov in narodnosti, več kot polovica prebivalcev ni avtohtonih Švedov, skoraj 70 odstotkov najmlajših (do 14 let) ima tujerodne korenine. Nič boljše ni po državi. Na Švedskem živi (po uradnih statističnih podatkih za leto 2020) samo še 74,1 odstotka avtohtonih Švedov, leta 1900 se je v tej skandinavski državi rodilo 99,8 odstotka novih državljanov, leta 2020 samo še dobrih 80 odstotkov. Priseljenci (legalni ali ilegalni) naseljujejo predvsem večja mesta in jug države, kar je povzročilo (predvsem v tem tisočletju) velik porast kriminala (ropov, umorov, posilstev). Število smrti zaradi nasilja z orožjem se je od leta 2006 do leta 2020 povečalo za sedemkrat.
Švedski levičarji, ki so v tem tisočletju oblikovali večino vlad, trdijo, da nasilju botruje slaba integracija priseljencev ter vse večja razlika med revnimi in bogatimi in tudi višja stopnja uživanja mamil. Nasprotno politiki desne provenience trdijo, da je za nasilje kriva politika odprtih vrat, dopuščanje multikulturalizma (od preloma tisočletja evangeličansko-luteranska narodna cerkev ni več priznana kot državna cerkev), popustljivost organov pregona zoper priseljence pri kaznovalni politiki in neverjetna podpora medijskega mainstreama migrantom. Dogaja se celo, da je državni radio (Sveriges Radio) podelil nagrado dokazanemu članu migrantske kriminalne tolpe Salahu »Dree Low« Abdulleju. Ta somalijski bogatitelj kulture se je v prostem času (ko za javnost ni bil kriminalec, ki se je pečal predvsem z orožjem) ukvarjal z rapom (rap je klasična gangsterska glasbena zvrst, izvajalci so praviloma člani band ali imajo s klasičnimi kriminalci prijateljske stike), nacionalni radio ga je razglasil za »umetnika prihodnosti«. Danes ga iščejo z mednarodno tiralico.
Švedski levičarji so do migrantskih kriminalcev zelo prizanesljivi, kazni so (celo za najhujša kazniva dejanja, kot je umor ali posilstvo) manjše, kot ti policija naloži kazen za prehitro vožnjo. Dežela vikingov je priložnost, da nasilje umiri, zamudila na začetku tisočletja, ko sta državo pretresla brutalna umora dveh domačinov, zločin so izvršile migrantske tolpe.
9. decembra 2000 je takratni 17-letni Daniel Wretström čakal na avtobusni postaji Säbytorgsvägen v Salemu na Švedskem, kraju jugozahodno od Stockholma. Vračal se je iz zabave, ko se je nenadoma prikazala podivjana priseljeniška tolpa in na Daniela kričala, da je rasist. Očitno so bili spodbujeni z govorom takratnega švedskega premierja Görana Perssona, švedskega levičarja in velikega zagovornika multikulturnosti, ki je le nekaj dni pred napadom dejal, da je treba »rasizem zdrobiti«. Zločinska banda priseljencev je to očitno vzela dobesedno. Rekonstrukcija dogodkov je pokazala, da je banda Daniela najprej pretepla s kolom, nato so mu prerezali grlo. Storilce je policija prijela, na sodišču se je kasneje vse skupaj sprevrglo v farso. Morilca Khaleda Odeha so spoznali za neprištevnega, po letu dni je že zapustil psihiatrično ustanovo. Trije so bili obsojeni na 40 ur dela v dobro skupnosti, drugi so morali plačati po 200 evrov kazni (1.800 švedskih kron).
Deset let kasneje (26. septembra 2010) je 23-letni Ephrem Tadele Yohannes iz Etiopije zverinsko posilil in umoril 27-letno Elin Krantz. Ironično je, da je bila svetlolaska vneta zagovornica multikulturnosti in bila celo dejavna v nevladni organizaciji. Rekonstrukcija je pokazala, da je bila brutalno posiljena in do smrti pretepena. Najprej je pretrpela je udarec v glavo, medtem ko jo je posiljeval, jo je davil. Po posilstvu jo je vlekel po gozdnih tleh. Brezobzirni migrant jo je pustil ležati razgaljeno od pasu navzdol z razkrečenimi nogami, nato pa je zločinec na njeno glavo in prsni koš zvalil 85 kilogramov težko skalo. Ephrem Tadel Yohannes je zločin priznal.
Britanski filozof, največji konservativni mislec svoje generacije in domoljub Sir Roger Scruton je nekoč dejal, če besede ne bodo imele več želenega učinka, bodo besede nadomestila dejanja. Govoril je o svobodi govora in nevarnosti omejevanja svobodnega izražanja: »Zdaj ni umorjen človek, ampak njegov značaj. Učinek je enak. Svobodno razpravo povsod omejujejo, tako nikoli ne bomo vedeli, kdo ima prav – preganjalci ali tisti, ki jih poskušajo utišati.«
Robert Golob je šel še korak dlje. Odstop Dragana Barbutovskega s položaja direktorja vladnega urada za komuniciranje (Ukom), ki naj bi odstopil zaradi spora v Gibanju svoboda, je povezal s »sovražnim govorom«. Pustimo ob strani vprašanje, ali je naloga Ukoma boj proti »sovražnemu govoru« (ali kakršnemukoli govoru nasploh), posvetimo se rajši zlovešči izjavi predsednika vlade: »Zato si želim, da bosta vlada in DZ jeseni odločno delovala proti sovražnemu govoru v medijih s katere koli strani. (…) Zato želimo okrepiti vladni urad ravno z ljudmi, ki razumejo, kam pripelje politizacija novinarstva in kam pripelje širjenje sovražnega govora.« Glede na to, da je Golob že pred volitvami obljubil, da bo obračunal z mediji, ki mu niso naklonjeni, lahko povsem upravičeno sklepamo, da vojno proti »sovražnemu govoru« razume kot vojno proti njemu in levici nenaklonjenih medijev. To ni nič drugega, kakor vojna napoved svobodi govora, ker je zelo tanka črta med omejevanjem »sovražnega govora« in vladno cenzuro izražanja mnenj.
Kaj sploh je »sovražni govor«? V prvi vrsti je to »govor« kot vsak drug. Kot je »pozitivna« ali »negativna« diskriminacija na koncu »diskriminacija«, je tudi »sovražni«, »ljubezenski«, »vizionarski« ali »kritičen« zgolj »govor«. Opredelitev, da je nekaj »sovražni govor«, je zelo subjektivna, ker vsak človek (smo si različni) drugače dojema izrečene besede; za nekoga je »sovražni govor« vsaka kritika, za drugega grožnja s smrtjo. Še posebej oblast mora biti zelo previdna pri napovedi vojne »sovražnemu govoru« (ali celo sami vojni), ker lahko družba hitro zapade v diktaturo, kjer ni več svobodnih medijev in svobode govora. Zato je cenzura »sovražnega govora« misija: nemogoče.
Človek, ki bi odločal o tem, da je nekaj sovražno, ne bi odločal na podlagi objektivnih kriterijev (ker jih v tem primeru ni mogoče določiti), ampak na podlagi svojih ideoloških preferenc in svetovnonazorske percepcije. Tudi če bi se zanašali na računalnik, v katerega bi vložili na bilijone različnih podatkov in ki bi na podlagi novih primerov učil samega sebe, nikoli ne bi mogli razviti tako pameten računalniški algoritem, ki bi dejansko zaznal za družbo nevarno človeško čustveno sovražnost v govorjeni ali pisani besedi. Umetna inteligenca nikakor ne bi mogla ločiti med kritiko, zasmehovanjem, obrekovanjem ali dejanskim sovraštvom z grožnjo; pri izražanju sovraštva (denimo »Sovražim te!« ali »Ubil te bom!«) večinoma ne gre za dejansko sovraštvo in resen namen, ampak za željo da nekoga, ki ga v resnici sploh ne sovražimo, užalimo ali prizadenemo, ker nam je bodisi tekmec bodisi mu vračamo »milo za drago«. Samo malo poglejte družbena omrežja. Če nekomu nekaj ni všeč ali se z nečim ne strinja, se zateče k zmerljivkam, poniževanju, norčevanju ali kritizerstvu. Je to sovražni govor? Celo med prijatelji mestoma letijo žaljivke drug na drugega (nikakor ne zlonamerno), a že naslednji hip bodo skupaj pili pivo. Vse to je le izražanje nestrinjanja na drug način in z močnimi besedami. In če se kdo čuti užaljenega ali obrekovanega, se za razrešitev tega spora obrne na sodišče, da presodi (kjer bo na koncu prevladalo subjektivno mnenje sodnika, kar pomeni, da mnenja drugih o določenem primeru ne obstajajo več, niti ne morejo obstajati).
Zaradi subjektivnosti dojemanja in vsebinske izmuzljivosti »sovražnega govora« ni mogoče opredeliti kot pravni pojem. Zato ga tudi kazenski zakoniki ne poznajo. Slovenski ima v 297. členu približek (spodbujanje in razpihovanje sovraštva, nasilja ali nestrpnosti), vendar so tudi z njim resne težave, ker v tej definiciji lahko vsak sliši, kar želi. Kar ni značilnost zakona, ki mora biti jasen in vsakemu razumljiv: da je različnih mnenj, kaj pomeni, čim manj, da vsak ve, kaj je kaznivo in kaj ne. Rečemo lahko, da 297. člen ne zadosti načelu določnosti (lex certa), ker, denimo, ni jasno določeno, kaj natančno pri govoru ali idejah o rasi ali spolu je spodbujanje in razpihovanje sovraštva. Za nekoga je spodbujanje rasnega sovraštva že samo navajanje, da je človeštvo razdeljeno na rase, ali povzemanje raziskav o povezanosti inteligence in rase; med progresivnimi prevladuje mnenje, da so rase (podobno kot spol) družbeni konstrukt.
Obstaja nešteto idej, mnenj, teorij in besed, za katere bi lahko Robert Golob in njegova koalicija presodila, da bi lahko spodbujala sovraštvo in vodila do nasilja. Glede na odzive levičarskih medijev, nevladnih organizacij in levih politikov bi lahko premierjev »sovražni govor« vključeval nasprotovanje splavu, kritiko migracij odprtih vrat, upiranje homoseksualnim porokam, zgražanju nad lezbičnimi posvojitvami otrok, zasmehovanju teorije spola ali karkoli drugega, kar bi na Gregorčičevi ulici 20 lahko opredelili izražanje sovražnosti. Torej vse tiste ideje, ki so značilne za konservativni svetovni nazor (konservativec bo vedno nasprotoval splavu ali homoseksualnim porokam). To lahko pomeni, da bo Golob samo idejo konservatizma označil za sovražno, liberalno demokracijo pa za edino sprejemljivo in dovoljeno ideologijo.
Svobodo govora so politično korektni naredili za zelo zapleteno. Skrajno čudno in nenavadno je, da je napoved, da mora biti določen govor cenzuriran in kaznovan, modna muha politike, ki samo sebe označuje za liberalno, čeprav je liberalizem (klasični) miselnost svobode govora in individualne svobode. Pravi liberalci, dediči mislecev klasičnega liberalizma, so danes v vrstah konservativcev, liberalci samo po imenu se danes gravitirajo levo od sredine in se navdušujejo nad totalitarnim zatiranjem idej, ki niso njihove. Ja, demokracija ni sama po sebi zagotovilo za pravično in svobodno družbo, sodobne demokracije s progresivnimi idejami in težnjami po zatiranju drugače mislečih postajajo tiranije; pomensko in vsebinsko nasprotje tiranije ni demokracija, ampak svoboda, kjer je svoboda govora na prvem mestu.
V vsakem trenutku zgodovine so obstajala stališča, ki so bila s strani oblasti označena za družbo nevarna in sovražna. In tako je očitno tudi z Golobovo vlado. A v vsakem trenutku zgodovine so obstajali ljudje, ki so branili svoja stališča. Ne glede na spore in simpatije, je bila svoboda govora vedno tisti vzgon, ki je gnal naprej, da smo kot človeštvo šli v znanju tako daleč, kot še nikoli prej. John Stuart Mill je dejal, da je poskus utišanja izražanja mnenj zlo, ki »oropa človeško raso, potomstvo in tudi obstoječo generacijo«. Po njegovo največjo žalitev za nekoga ne povzroči laž, ampak resnica. Človek (sicer različno od posameznika do posameznika) prenese psovke, žalitve in obrekovanja, če ve, da so lažna. Boli sicer, ampak imaš pri sebi zadoščenje, ker veš, da obrekovalec laže. In resnica vedno pride na plano, resnica vedno zmaga. Če pa posameznik ve, da so pripombe na njegov račun resnične, potem želi utišati kritika. In to je tudi razlog, da je Golob napovedal vojno in pogrom predvsem nad Nova24TV in Demokracijo: pod pretvezo boja proti »sovražnemu govoru« želi prekriti in utišati resnico, ki jo medija oznanjata javnosti.
Nekaj bi se morali premier, vladna koalicija in dušebrižni preganjalci »sovražnega« govora zavedati: ko ljudem prepoveš besede, se ljudstvo odzove z dejanji. In potem nam Bog pomagaj.
P.S. Spremljam tudi večino levega medijskega mainstreama. Ne zato, ker se z njim strinjam, ampak zato, da vidim, kje se z njim ne strinjam, na kateri točki se moje prepričanje razhaja z levim. Povem vam, ni bolj dolgočasne stvari na svetu, kot brati, poslušati ali gledati mnenja, s katerimi se strinjaš. Če to počneš, ne veš, kaj misli tisti, ki ni enakega prepričanja, kot si ti; niti kritike ne moreš izraziti. Zato bi bil svet brez medijev različnih ideologij ali svetovnih nazorov osiromašen. Svoboda govora je edini način, da smo kot družba boljši in preživimo.
Zapis Ministrstva za notranje zadeve (MNZ) na družbenem omrežju Twitter ne pušča nikakršnega dvoma – enači legalne migracije z ilegalnimi. Da se je pač treba sprijazniti, ker so del »realnosti in stalnica sodobnih družb« in da je število ilegalnih prehodov primerljivo s predkoronskim letom 2019. Ko ministrstvo, ki je med drugim zadolženo tudi za varovanje mej in preprečevanje nelegalnih prečkanj, meni, da je pravzaprav vseeno, kdo in na kakšen način stopi na njeno ozemlje, ker je to v sodobnem svetu postalo nekaj povsem običajnega, pomeni, da se vlada odpoveduje teritorialni suverenosti in oblasti. Meje namreč določajo, kako daleč sega moč (ali vpliv) vlade. Potem ko je Robert Golob izvršno oblast konec junija de facto predal v roke nevladnih organizacij, je ministrica Tatjana Bobnar sporočila, da se vlada odpoveduje tudi suvereni pravici nadzora državnih mej.
Naj bom zelo jasen: vsak ilegalni prehod meje je kršitev ozemeljske suverenosti neke države. Taki prehodi se sicer povsod po svetu dogajajo vsak dan, države običajno težijo k temu, da bi preprečile prav vsak ilegalni prehod. In če je cilj države »nič smrtnih žrtev na slovenskih cestah«, bi moral biti cilj nadzora mej »nič ilegalnih prehodov mej«. Ne 100, 500 ali 1.000 na leto, ampak nič (0!). Tak cilj imajo prav vse sosednje države (Italija, Avstrija, Madžarska), le Slovenija je zdaj dvignila roke. Bobnarjevi je očitno postalo vseeno, ali prišleki (ki jih ne pozna in ne ve, s kakšnim namenom prihajajo) vstopijo v Slovenijo po ilegalnih tihotapskih ali legalno na mejnih prehodih. In tudi če je vneta podpornica (ilegalnih) migracij, je danes na položaju, ko mora braniti in varovati meje. Popolnoma brezpredmetno je, kaj si vlada (ali policija) misli o migracijah, poskrbeti mora za spoštovanje zakonodaje (za to skrbi izvršilna veja oblasti), kar pomeni, da mora preprečevati ilegalne prehode, ne pa, da jih še spodbuja in jih minimalizira.
Kot lahko preberemo na spletni strani vlade (MNZ), je skrb vzbujajoče, da ne ločijo migrantov od beguncev. Begunec je upravičen do azila v prvi varni državi. Če bi bili pravna država in bi se tega držali, v Sloveniji nihče ne bi mogel dobiti azila, ker je pred tem (ilegalno) prečkal več varnih držav. Nihče ne trdi, da migracije niso del sodobnosti (ne samo sodobnosti, v zgodovini je vedno prihajalo do migracij), vendar gre pri tem za ekonomske migrante, ki legalno prečkajo mejo na mejnih prehodih. Vendar ima tudi v tem primeru država suvereno pravico, da določi, kdo lahko vstopi in koliko jih lahko vstopi na njeno ozemlje. Če želi ohraniti nacionalno identiteto, kulturo in tradicijo avtohtonih prebivalcev (meje običajno določajo zaokrožen teritorij z isto kulturo, jezikom in tradicijo), na svoje ozemlje ne spusti neomejeno število ljudi, ki prinašajo svojo kulturo, identiteto in jezik (ali pa prišlekom omeji trajanje bivanja). Absorpcijska sposobnost naroda je nekako pri petih odstotkih tujih prišlekov v dveh generacijah. Kar je več, že pomeni, da tuja kultura ogroža avtohtono in jo lahko v nekaj generacijah povsem izpodrine. Narod s tako politiko je na dobri poti v nacionalni samomor.
Čeprav bo kdo rekel, da bi moral kot zagovornik prostega trga (prost pretok blaga in storitev) zagovarjati tudi odprte meje in prost pretok ljudi (in namestitev vsakega v državi, ki si jo izbere za svoj dom), ni tako preprosto in je ena od zablod, ki izhaja iz nerazumevanja laissez–faire (o tem sem že pisal, a bom na tem mestu na kratko ponovil). Klasični liberalizem temelji na prostem trgu, prosti trg pa na prostovoljni menjavi blaga in storite (poudarek je na ´prostovoljni´).To pomeni, da te nihče ne more nikogar prisiliti, da nekaj kupi (ali proda), če tega ne želi; predvidena je prostovoljna izmenjava dobrin med prodajalcem in kupcem, med tistim, ki proizvaja in prodaja, ter potrošnikom. Ali drugače. Če naročim neko blago v Nemčiji, to storim prostovoljno in pričakujem, da mi ga bo prodajalec iz Nemčiji poslal. Oba, in jaz kot kupec in Nemec kot prodajalec, sodelujeva pri tem poslu prostovoljno. Podobno je s prostim pretokom ljudi, strinjati se morata oba: tako gostitelj kot prišlek. Recimo, da sem na spletu našel oglas, da potrebujejo v Franciji profil delavca, ki mu ustrezam. Prijavim se in gostitelj me povabi. To je obojestranska prostovoljna interakcija. Toda če nekdo prestopi mejo, brez da bi ga kdo povabil, potem ne gre za obojestranski prostovoljni odnos. Predstavljate si, da bi neko belgijsko podjetje pošiljalo v Slovenijo pakete, ne da bi jih potrošniki v Sloveniji naročili. To ne bi bila več izmenjava dobrin ali trgovina. Trgovina mora temeljiti na prostovoljnem odnosu.
Nekateri sicer menijo, da v državi, kamor ilegalno pridejo migranti, obstaja državna lastnina, javni prostori, kjer se lahko zadržujejo. To je res, toda kjer je take lastnine preveč, to ni več svobodna družba. Pa tudi v tem primeru bi se morala država izkazati kot dober lastnik, kot dober upravitelj, ki ščiti svoje državljane. In lastniki teh javnih površin, smo državljani, država z njimi samo upravlja. Politika odprtih mej torej pomeni kršenje lastninskih pravic.
Poleg tega izvršilna oblast skrbi za izvrševanje zakonodaje in ilegalni prehodi meje so opredeljeni (vsaj za zdaj) kot nespoštovanje regulative. Zato mora država take prehode preprečevati. Torej, če nekdo hoče v drugo državo, ne da bi ga kdo poklical, nima pravice svobodnega prečkanja meje.
Ilegalne migracije ne samo da kršijo ozemeljsko suverenost neke države, priseljevanje povzroča tudi škodo avtohtonemu narodu in vsem, ki v tej državi zakonito prebivajo: spodkopava zakonite (ekonomske) migracije, škodi domači (in zakoniti tuji) delovni sili, so veliko breme za (neto) davkoplačevalce in izrivajo narodno identiteto. Zato je ključnega pomena preprečevanje nezakonitega priseljevanja (ali prehoda države) in zmanjševanje nezakonito priseljene populacije. To bi morala biti naloga Golobove vlade, nikakor ne, da ministrstvo, ki ga vodi Tatjana Bobnar, zmanjšuje pomen zakonitih prehodov meje in jih enači z ilegalnimi. Ne gre več za zadevo, ki je primerna za običajno interpelacijo ministrice, ampak za vprašanje nacionalne varnosti in obrambo ustavne suverenosti teritorija slovenske države, kar je zrelo za ustavno obtožbo in (v nadaljevanju) kazenski postopek. To ni samo neumnost ali sprevrženost (kot eno od štirih politik slabega vladanja opredeljuje Barbara Tuchman v knjigi The March of Folly), niti ni zgolj norost, da se Slovenija odpoveduje nadzoru in varovanju mej, ampak načrtno (ob kršenju pozitivne zakonodaje) uvajanje (politične) agende multikulturalizma (ne samo multikulturnosti).
In ne pozabite. Evropejci smo glede na svetovno populacijo manjšina. Vedno smo bili. Danes pa je delež Evropejcev v svetovni populaciji najmanjši v zgodovini človeštva. Dovolj velik razlog, da se prižgejo vse rdeče luči in dovolj velik razlog, da se poostri nadzor na zunanjih mejah, ne da se meje še bolj na široko odpira.
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!«
Konec maja sem pisal o Hassanu Dhgeyu Himiyeju, ki je na Švedsko prišel, da obogati skandinavsko kulturo. Je oče devetih otrok, v Filipstad je prišel iz Somalije. Kar je pomembno. Povprečni IQ v Somaliji je približno 68. Politično korektnim se je številka zdela rasistična in skrajno pretiravanje. No, zadnje študije kažejo, da je IQ Somalijcev še nižji, kot se je zdelo, neimenovan 61-letni zdravnik celo pravi:»Samo navajam dejstva. Če pogledate raziskave, ki so jih opravili Tatu Vanhanen in drugi, je IQ v Somaliji okoli 70. Opažam le, da na Švedskem človek z IQ okoli 70 velja za rahlo duševno prizadetega.« Tak uvod je pomemben za spodnjo zgodbo. Kot vse kaže, bomo Evropejci do konca stoletja postali celina idiotov.
Leta 2018 je francosko-nemški televizijski kanal Arte predvajal dokumentarni film z naslovom ´Bomo jutri vsi idioti?´ (film je imel v angleški različici naslov ´Možgani v nevarnosti´). Angleški raziskovalec Edward Dutton je v njem predstavil svoja desetletja dolga opažanja in dokumentiranja, kako se povprečna inteligenca v zahodnih državah zmanjšuje, še posebej v skandinavskih. Spletna revija Slate je zapisala, da bi moral film vzbuditi skrb, a je šel mimo precej neopazno. Ampak ker danes velja, da je IQ konstrukt v rokah rasistov, se vsi v velikem loku izogibajo razprav o inteligenci in kaj jo pogojuje. Če kdo o tem kaj napiše, je izpostavljen javnemu blatenju, tako kot ameriški analitik Jason Richwine. No, nekateri mainstream mediji, ki so sicer pritrdili raziskavam, da se povprečen IQ v zahodnih državah zmanjšuje, so navajali povsem druge vzroke.
Revija Forbes je tako pisala, da zmanjševanje povprečnega IQ nima povezave z genetiko in priseljevanjem. Po njihovo naj bi bila kriva nova tehnologija. Na globalni televiziji CNN so menili, da je padec povprečnega IQ v razvitih državah povezan z »okoljskimi dejavniki«. Toliko o tem politično korektni mainstream. Malo bolj podrobna analiza pokaže, da sta glavna vzroka za zmanjševanje IQ v zahodnih državah (predvsem v Franciji, Nemčiji, Veliki Britanijo, skandinavskih državah in državah Beneluxa) priseljevanje (povezava z genetiko) in prilagajanje izobraževalnega sistema sposobnostim »novih državljanov«.
Čeprav danes ni »modno« in je celo nevarno reči (takoj si obtožen rasizma, ker je merjenje IQ narejeno po meri razvitih držav), da je IQ genetsko pogojen, tudi znanstveniki priznavajo, da na človekov IQ najbolj vplivajo genetski dejavniki. Genetiki so celo identificirali določene gene, ki imajo vlogo pri določanju inteligence. Kljub nespornim dokazom (denimo, otroci tretje generacije priseljencev imajo enako nizek IQ kot prva generacija priseljencev) se politično korektni in pospeševalci mešanja kultur zatekajo k metafizičnim odgovorom.
Povprečen IQ je v zahodnih državah naraščal do sredine sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Nato se je trend obrnil. Od takrat naprej do danes so v zahodne države pljusknili trije veliki migracijski vali. Švedska (povprečen IQ okoli 100) je dober primer (GRAF): prvi val je bil na prelomu šestdesetih v sedemdeseta leta (iz Balkana, kjer se IQ giblje med 90 in 93), drugi val je bil v devetdesetih letih iz muslimanskih držav (povprečen IQ med 80 in 85), zadnji val, ki še traja, se je začel konec prvega desetletja tega tisočletja, in to iz Afrike (IQ pod 75). Podobno je bilo z Nemčijo in Francijo, vendar s to razliko, da je prvi val v Nemčijo prinesel največ Turkov (povprečen IQ je 90), Francijo pa iz držav, kjer so imeli kolonije (povprečen IQ med 80 in 85).
Ker se je rodnost avtohtonih prebivalcev zmanjševala, priseljeniške skupine iz Bližnjega vzhoda in Afrike pa se razmnožujejo hitreje kot beli Evropejci (primer Hassana na začetku zapisa), se zniža tudi povprečen IQ. Kdor obvlada osnovne matematične operacije, bo razumel, za druge pa konkreten primer. Denimo, da je bilo leta 1970 v razredu 9 otrok avtohtonih prebivalcev (IQ je 100) in eden iz Bližnjega vzhoda (IQ 85). Povprečen IQ (9 x 100 plus 1 x 85 deljeno z 10) je torej 98,5. Konec tisočletja je bilo v razredu samo še 6 avtohtonih otrok, trije iz Bližnjega vzhoda in eden iz Somalije. Povprečen IQ (6 x 100 plus 3 x 85 plus 1 x 70 deljeno z 10) je 92,5. Danes so v razredu večinoma otroci priseljencev: 2 avtohtona, 5 iz Bližnjega vzhoda in trije Afričani. Povprečen IQ (2 x 100 plus 5 x 85 plus 3 x 70 deljeno z 10) je zdaj 83,5. Seveda, gre za poenostavljeno pretiravanje, ki je namenjeno zgolj ponazoritvi. Toda ob taki hitrosti priseljevanja in nižanja povprečnega (nacionalnega) IQ, bodo Skandinavci prvi v Evropi postali povprečni idioti.
Čeprav je IQ genetsko pogojen in je za njegovo spremembo potrebnih več stoletij, delno vpliva tudi izobraževalni sistem, saj se šole spreminjajo iz poučevanja naravoslovnih (akademskih) predmetov v učilnice uvajanja socialnih politik.
Realnega ocenjevanja znanja ni več, ocene so danes skoraj brez pomena. Veliko pomembnejše je, da je otrok danes socialno čuteč in sprejemljiv za »različnost«, kot da obvlada zapletene operacije v matematiki, fiziki ali kemiji (matematika je prilagojena priseljencem). Zato je inteligenca v današnjem času nižja kot v preteklosti in še vedno upada.
Nad padcem inteligence oziroma padanjem povprečnega IQ so seveda najbolj navdušeni levičarji, ki si nadejajo, da bodo zmagovali na volitvah. Zakaj? Demokracija je sistem, kjer na volitvah zmaga večina. Priseljenci z nižjim IQ, ki pridejo v države z višjim IQ, bodo vedno glasovali kratkoročno, da bi kar najhitreje zadovoljili lastne interese (samo seznam dobitnikov neprofitnih stanovanj v Mestni občini Ljubljana je treba pogledati). Slednje so običajno levičarske ideje, medtem ko staroselci ponavadi gledajo bolj dolgoročno, bolj pazijo, kako ravnati z bogastvom in politikami zadolževanja. Nizek IQ torej hromi dolgoročni razvoj in blaginjo države ter daje prednost uresničevanju kratkoročnih koristi (npr. velike socialne pomoči). Ta proces je v zadnjih letih z velikim številom migrantov z nizkim IQ začel rasti eksponentno, države so se že začele destabilizirati. Zdi se, da je bližajoča se kriza, za katero ekonomist Janez Šušteršič pravi, da bo strukturna, posledica ravno teh procesov: običajno se spremembe najprej pokažejo v gospodarstvu, nato so politične, sledi ekstremno obdobje – krvavega spopada.
Se je sploh mogoče izogniti vojni civilizacij na evropskih tleh? Možnosti je vsako leto manj, smo na dobri poti, da z eksperimentom (spolne, rasne in druge kvote imajo prednost pred meritokracijo) povsem ohromimo razvoj in uničimo prihodnost naših otrok. Ko se bo to zgodilo, bo izgubljena največja civilizacija, kar jih je obstajalo v zgodovini človeštva. Pomagati pomoči potrebnim in spravljati revnejše narode umetno (ne po naravni poti) na višjo raven, ki jo najbrž sploh ne razumejo dobro, je mogoče socialno pravično in sočutno, zagotovo pa ni modro, saj ogroža blaginjo avtohtonih prebivalcev stare celine. Rešitev je najbrž precej radikalna in za današnji čas nepredstavljiva, toda treba se bo odločiti, ker se čas izteka.
»Pričakujem, da se bo inteligenca povezala s konservativizmom, in to se že dogaja. Zdi se, da je generacija Z, vaša generacija, po več lastnostih vse bolj prava in konservativna. Na Zahodu že vidite to polarizacijo med desnico in levico, ki je na vzhodu nikoli niste imeli. Posledično bo družba razpadla in dobili bomo območja, ki se gentrificirajo (na nekatera se selijo ljudje, ki so inteligentni).
Nahajamo se v zimi civilizacije. Zima vedno prinese iste stvari – feminizem, multikulturalizem, upadanje inteligence, propad spolnega moralizma in razpad patriarhata. Zahodnoevropski akademski prostor prevzamejo levičarske ideje. Ne verjamejo v resnico, ampak v določene moralne temelje, ki so pomembnejše od resnice. Po drugi strani obstaja v vzhodni Evropi še vedno skrb za resnico. Civilizacija se bo najverjetneje ohranila v Vzhodni Evropi.«
Hassan Dhgey Himiye je oče devetih otrok. Je eden izmed tistih nanotehnologov, astronavtov, inženirjev, zdravnikov, učiteljev in IT strokovnjakov, ki so zapustili dom in se prebili v Evropo. Zaradi njega je stara celina boljša, še posebej Švedska, kjer se je naselil v Filipstadu, mestecu, ki je obkroženo z idiličnimi jezeri in leži zahodno od Stockholma.
Hassan je pred enajstimi leti iz Somalije prišel na Švedsko, poroča Fria Tider (v angleščini na portalu Gates of Vienna). To je bil zanj kot zadetek na loteriji. »Na Švedskem je zelo dobro,« je dejal na SVT (švedska nacionalna televizija).
To očitno pomeni, da mu skandinavska država omogoča iskanje dela, ki ga po več kot desetletju še ni našel, čeprav je medtem zelo napredoval: postal je postal strokovnjak za uporabo pametnega telefona, profesionalen gledalec televizije, kvalificiran pohajkovalec po mestu in kljub obilici tega dela zelo potrpežljiv, ko je treba čakati v vrsti za denarno nadomestilo. Ima tudi občinsko potrdilo o integraciji. Tudi to šteje, brez dvoma.
Somalijci so na Švedskem »ranljiva skupina«. Naštejmo nekaj dejstev:
Konec leta 2019 je na Švedskem (SCB) živelo 111.014 Somalijcev.
Vsak Somalijec, ki prejme dovoljenje za prebivanje, stane davkoplačevalce 10 milijonov SEK (ABC), kar ustreza okoli 950.000 evrov.
Med Somalijci, ki živijo na Švedskem do štiri leta, je povprečni dohodek iz dela 100 SEK/mesec (9,5 evra), ostalo pa so nadomestila (RUT).
Devet od desetih somalijskih priseljencev je nepismenih (Yle).
Eden od petih mladih Somalcev v Göteborgu je vpleten v vsaj en nasilni zločin v dveh letih (GP).
82 odstotkov Somalijcev na Švedskem je brezposelnih (SR).
Povprečni IQ v Somaliji je približno 68. To pomeni, da je verjetnost, da ima naključni Šved višji IQ kot naključni Somalec, 94 odstotkov (Lynn 2002).
Somalijci so bistveno bolj zadovoljni z življenjem na Švedskem kot etnični Švedi. Somalijski nepismeni so najbolj zadovoljni s Švedsko (SvD).
Hassan Dhgey Himiye je za švedsko televizijo dejal, da je »Švedska res velika država« in da je »na Švedskem, res dobro«.
Dnevnik Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) je nad nepismenimi Somalijci, ki so s Švedsko najbolj zadovoljni, tako navdušen, da je Somalijce opisal kot »najbolj ponosne Švede«.
»Tisti, ki se počutijo najbolj domače in so ponosni, so Somalijci,« je ob predstavitvi raziskave dejal Bi Puranen, generalni sekretar globalne raziskave vrednot.
Hassan je že dve leti vdovec. SVT ne poroča, kako je umrla njegova žena.
Ker božično-novoletna poslanica madžarskega predsednika Viktorja Orbana svojim sonarodnjakom še vedno odmeva po Evropi, jo objavljamo v celoti.
„Smo v pričakovanju velikega praznika krščanskega sveta. Pričakujemo dan rojstva našega gospoda Jezusa Kristusa. Medtem ko v tišini čakamo in se nam dviguje pogled, pozabljamo na naš vsakdanjik, a naša duhovna obzorja so vse širša. V takem izrednem duhovnem stanju smo sposobni analizirati preteklo leto in premišljevati, kaj se bo zgodilo prihodnje leto.
Mi, Evropejci, ali si priznamo ali ne, se tega zavedamo ali ne, živimo kulturo, ki je urejena po nauku Jezusa Kristusa. Citiral bom nekdanjega madžarskega premiera Jožefa Antalla: ´V Evropi je tudi ateist kristjan.´ Mi, Madžari, se z vso pravico imamo za krščanski narod. Naš materin jezik, s pomočjo katerega se sporazumevamo in s pomočjo katerega smo zgradili našo realnost, ni v sorodu z nobenim drugim evropskimjezikom. Posledice tega imajo svojo vrednost.
Babits Mihály nas je naučil, da je madžarski duh nastal, ko se je združil naš vzhodni karakter s krščansko kulturo. Temu lahko dodamo, da sta iz te združitve nastala naš način razmišljanja in naš pogled na svet. A ta duh nam je občasno prinašal tudi težave, nerazumevanje, osamljenost, včasih tudi občutek odtujenosti. Kljub vsemu smo v tisočih letih obdržali krščansko identiteto in vero, in to v samem srcu Evrope. Od začetka do danes stojimo za našo kulturo in materinim jezikom, zato smo lahko ponosni, da smo v tisočih letih doprinesli k vzponu Evrope.
Po Markovem evangeliju je Kristusov drugi nauk: ´Ljubi svojega bližnjega kakor samega sebe.´ V Evropi se ta nauk pogosto omenja. Stem nam želijo vzbuditi občutek krivde, ker kljub našemu krščanskemu poreklu ne dopuščamo, da se v Evropo priseljujejo milijoni z drugih koncev sveta.
Toda oni pozabljajo drugi del nauka. Razen, da ljubimo svojega bližnjega, ljubimo tudi sami sebe. Ljubiti samega sebe pomeni, da varujemo in stojimo za tem, kdo smo in kar smo. Ljubiti samega sebe pomeni ljubiti svojo domovino, narod, družino, madžarsko kulturo in evropsko civilizacijo. V teh okvirih se rojeva naša svoboda – madžarska svoboda.
Stoletja smo živeli in vedeli, da je madžarska svoboda zastavonoša evropske svobode. S tem vedenjem smo se zoperstavili pohodom osmanskega cesarstva, to poslanstvo je dalo meč v roke Petöfiju in to poslanstvo je dalo hrabrost junakom protikomunistične revolucije leta 1956. Ustava pravi: ´Ponosni smo, ker je sveti Stjepan pred tisočletjempostavil madžarsko državo na trdnih temeljih in jo naredil za del krščanske Evrope. Priznamo vlogo krščanstva pri ohranjanju naroda.´
Meje naše samobitnosti so enake krščanstvu, od koder izvira naš ponos in moč našega obstanka. Krščanstvo predstavlja in kulturo in civilizacijo. V njej živimo. Ni pomembno, koliko nas hodi v cerkev in koliko jih iskreno moli. Kultura je realnost našega vsakdana: način sporazumevanja, obnašanja, kako smo razumevajoči do drugih, kako vstopamo v ta svet in kako iz njega odhajamo. Evropskemu človeku krščanstvo daje moralne meje v vsakodnevnem življenju, pri vsakodnevnih odločitvah daje merila in smer delovanja. Krščanska kultura nas vodi, ko smo v dvomih. Ona nam bo povedala, kaj je dobro in kaj ne, razumevanje o odnosih med spoloma, družini, delu in poštenju.
Naša kultura je kultura življenja. Naša izhodiščna točka, alfa in omega naše življenjske filozofije, vrednost našega življenja, je dostojanstvo, ki smo ga vsi dobili od Boga. Brez tega ne moremo ocenjevati niti ´človekovih pravic´ in drugih sodobnih izrazov. Iz tega izhajajo naši dvomi, ali se naša kultura lahko uporablja za civilizacije, ki so nastale na drugačnih temeljih.
Temelji evropskega življenja se danes napadajo! Dojemanje evropskega življenja je v nevarnosti. To so stvari, na katere ni treba opozarjati, saj se že dogajajo. Bistvo kulture je prav v tem, če se ne razume sama po sebi, jo ljudje začno izgubljati. Ne bomo imeli več ničesar, za kar bi se prijeli, našega časa ne bomo več nastavljali, niti ne bomo imeli smeri, v katero bi nastavili svoj kompas.
Ne glede na to, ali gremo v cerkev ali ne. In če gremo, v katero cerkev gremo. Ne želimo svetega večera preživeti s spuščenimi zavesami, da ne bi za Božič prizadeli čustev nekaterih. Ne želimo preimenovanj božičnih sejmov, še manj želimo Božič skrivati za betonskimi barikadami. Ne želimo, da naši otroci ostanejo brez radostnega pričakovanja sv. Miklavža in angelov. Ne želimo, da smo pri sveti maši zaskrbljeni. Ne želimo, da nam za novo leto strašijo žene in hčere!
Mi Evropejci smo kristjani, vse to je naše, to je naše življenje. Za nas je normalno, da verujemo, da se je Jezus rodil, bil križan, umrl za nas in da je nato vstal. Naši prazniki so razumljivi sami po sebi in od njih pričakujemo, da dajo smisel našemu vsakdanu. Kultura deluje na podoben način; kot imunski sistem človeka – dokler deluje, ga ne zaznamo. Ko oslabi, ga takoj opazimo in nam postane pomemben. Ko nam želijo retuširati križe, ko želijo odstraniti križ s kipa Janeza PavlaII., ko želijo spremeniti božične praznike, bo zazvonil alarm pri vsakem zavednem Evropejcu. Preplah bodo zagnali tudi tisti, za katere je krščanstvo, kot je dejal Gyula Juhász, poganstvo poškropljeno s sveto vodo. Preplah bodo zagnali tudi ljudje, ki so, kot krščanska ateistka Oriana Fallaci, zaskrbljeni za Evropo.
Danes je napad usmerjen v same temelje našega dojemanja svetovnega reda. Imunski sistem naše Evrope namerno slabijo. Ne želijo, da smo to, kar smo, ampak želijo, da postanemo tisto, kar nismo. Želijo, da se pomešamo z narodi, ki so prišli iz drugih koncev sveta, in da se potem, da se izognemo konfliktom, spremenimo.
S pomočjo svetlobe božičnih sveč lahko dobro vidimo, da z napadom na krščansko kulturo želijo uničiti Evropo. Želijo nam vzeti naš način življenja in ga zamenjati s takim, ki ni naš. V zameno za naše dosedanje življenje nam ponujajo nekakšno novo ´prosvetljeno´ življenje. Ampak to je utopija, ki ne izhaja iz dejanskega življenja, ampak je plod filozofske prevare. Utopija so namreč sanje, ki so čudovite, zato so utopije privlačne, vendar so še vedno zapletene, neprepoznavne, zamegljene in nerazumne kot so sanje. V utopiji ni mogoče živeti, niti jih ne moremo usmerjati.
Ne moremo trditi, da je krščanska kultura najbolj popolna. Ključ za razumevanje krščanske kulture se nahaja prav v tem, da se zavedamo nepopolnosti, lastne nepopolnosti, s tem smo se naučili živeti, iz tega vlečemo navdih in moč za napredek. Ravno zato se Evropejci že stoletja prizadevamo, da svet naredimo vedno boljši. Prednost nepopolnosti je, da si prizadevamo biti boljši. To možnost nam zdaj odvzemajo tisti, ki obljubljajo nek lep pomešan svet, oni za seboj rušijo vse, za kar so se naši predniki borili in če je bilo potrebno, so žrtvovali svojo kri. Zato je naša dolžnost, da te vrednote pustimo našim potomcem.
Še do nedavnega ni bilo mogoče slišati tezo snovalcev, se pravi očetov Evropske unije, ki so pred 60 leti začrtali smer. ´Evropa bo krščanska, ali pa je ne bo,´ je takrat rekel Robert Schuman. Leto 2017 je evropske države postavilo pred zgodovinsko nalogo. Svobodni evropski narodi in od svobodnih ljudi izbrane nacionalne vlade so dobile nalogo, da ubranijo krščansko kulturo. Ne zaradi drugih, ampak zaradi samih sebe, zaradi družine, naroda, države in doma vseh domov – naše Evrope.
Leta 2017 smo videli, da imajo voditelji evropskih držav različna stališča do te naloge. Obstajajo tudi taki, ki mislijo, da je težava izmišljena. Menijo, da je to napredek. Na koncu so tudi taki, ki so se podali na pot predaje in izdaje. In taki, ki križem rok čakajo, da težavo reši nekdo drug. Tisočletna zgodovina Madžarske je priča, da nismo eni od teh. Mi gremo v drugo smer.
Naše izhodišče je, da imamo pravico, da živimo svoje življenje. Ko smo imeli moč, smo to pravico tudi ubranili. Zato že več let delamo brez oddiha, da bi se Madžarska okrepila in se postavila na svoje noge. Ko gledam na prihajajoče leto 2018, vam lahko obljubim, da dokler bo nacionalna vlada na čelu države, se bo pametno in umirjeno, ampak tudi brezkompromisno borila za obstanek naše krščanske kulture in domovine, borila se bo, da Evropa ostane evropska.
Kavarna Hayek 
