In response to proposed "Stop Soros" legislation in Hungary, George Soros plans to move his Central European University to Vienna.
The post Hungary Introduces “Stop George Soros” Bill Effectively Forcing Out the Billionaire’s Organization appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
George Soros has suffered a rather humiliating defeat after pumping millions of dollars into a Hungarian election he attempted to buy. Soros, who was born in Hungary and desperately wanted a hardened fascist to win the election, is now out millions of dollars as Viktor Orbán won with a whopping 70% of the vote.
Viktor Orbán is known as an “anti-globalist” painted with the same broad brush as president Donald Trump. Prime minister Orbán has also successfully cut illegal immigration to Hungary by 99% after building his wall on the border.
With the votes counted, Europe Elects is sharing stats which show Fidesz, the party founded by Prime Minister Orbán while he was a young anti-Communist dissident, has won not merely a decisive majority but an outright super-majority, along with minor allied parties. This will allow changes to the national constitution. Hopefully, those changes will be for more the better of the people, and not the expansion of liberty-trampling governments – something Soros has championed for decades.
Landslide for Orban’s Fidsez. 70% of votes for Right or Far Right = major headache for Brussels. https://t.co/l7Y95x6Vq2
— Andrew Neil (@afneil) April 8, 2018
The results will be extremely disappointing for top bureaucrats in the European Union and activists working for so-called civil society NGOs funded by billionaire open borders campaigner George Soros, who had been hoping for an upset defeat, or for Fidesz to lose its super-majority, at least. This is certainly a bloody nose to the globalists and elitists who want to control the entire population.
Hungarian Government Slams Anti-Brexit Plot: ‘Why Do We Say “Stop Soros”? Just Ask the British People.’ https://t.co/Ph9nHLcUdM
— Jack Montgomery ن (@JackBMontgomery) February 10, 2018
With Orban’s success, Soros is likely reeling from his discomfort that his globalist control over society is slipping, and quickly. Orban has become increasingly popular because of his strong defense policies with regards to his country’s borders. Unlike the open arms of Sweden and Germany that led to disastrous results, Orban successfully all but stopped illegal immigration and the violence that has come with it.
It was a victory guided by a common theme pushed by Orban: “Stop George Soros.” And once again, Orban was successful and Soros is left licking his wounds with his tail tucked between his legs. Nothing is more comforting than seeing billionaire global elitist Soros take a loss.
When it comes to holidays and travelling in general, Europe has a lot to offer.
Cosmopolitan cities jam packed with culture, pristine beaches, excellent ski resorts, you name it. Given all of that, it comes as little surprise that many Europeans never travel outside the EU.
As Statista"s Niall McCarthy notes, the most recent Eurobarometer data showing the share of people who have travelled at least once outside the EU was published in 2014.
You will find more statistics at Statista
The above infographic shows the results of the research, with Swedes most likely to have been outside the EU. That is more than likely due to the long and open border with neighbouring Norway which is not part of the EU.
The same story is likely true for Austria due to its proximity to Switzerland.
People in newer member states in Eastern Europe are least likely to have been outside the EU with Bulgaria, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and Romania all towards the bottom of the ranking.
Interestingly, Portugal comes second last, possibly due to the fact that it only shares a land border with Spain. Only 18 percent of all Portuguese residents have travelled outside the EU.
Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,
Poland’s new Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki shared his dream to make Europe Christian again.
The newly appointed premier replaced Beata Szydlo and symbolizes that Poland is taking a more combative posture towards the West than in the past. While Prime Ministers undoubtedly have a very important domestic role to play too, it’s important not to overlook the international implications of Morawiecki’s appointment, especially given what he shared in his very first interview after the announcement when he said that
“My dream is to re-Christianize the EU since unfortunately, in many places, people no longer sing Christmas carols, the churches are empty and are turning into museums, and this is very sad.”
In responding to the interviewer’s comment about how the EU might cut off funding for Poland, Morawiecki proudly said that “I do remember one former president telling us earlier this year ‘you have values, we have funds.’ Well, I would love to help the West with proper values.”
Rhetoric such as this would have been unimaginable a few years ago, but it just goes to show how far the intra-EU split has gone ever since Brussels and Berlin teamed up to pressure the bloc to accept the forced relocation of civilizationally dissimilar migrants.
It also speaks to the growing confidence that Poland feels nowadays in officially introducing a conservative-religious ideological vision to challenge the EU’s liberal-godless one, demonstrating how it plans to lead the “Three Seas Initiative” and advance its EuroRealist agenda. Moreover, Morawiecki’s words prove just how strongly Poland and its ruling Law & Justice Party, popularly known by its Polish abbreviation PiS, have been influenced by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party. Hungary may have been the ideological heart of the EuroRealist movement and Orban its first national figurehead in the EU, but Poland is now carrying the torch through Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s “grey cardinal” stewardship because this Central European country is actually big enough to make a real difference.
It was one thing for a landlocked nation of less than 10 million people to have this continental outlook, and another for the leader of the regional “Three Seas Initiative” and its 40 million-strong country to promote this perspective, which makes Poland an EU-wide force to be recognized because of how ideologically different its worldview is from Germany’s.
Whereas Berlin will continue pulling the purse strings and exercising its influence through economic means, Warsaw is flexing its soft power muscle by appealing to what matters most to many of the people in Central and Eastern Europe, and that’s the national identity that they fear is under threat because of Germany’s aggressive EuroLiberalism. If Poland can succeed in winning hearts and minds in the region through its religious-conservative EuroRealist ideology, then the next natural step will be to tighten the trading bonds between its “Three Seas” partners in order to generate a stronger economic basis for turning their vision into a reality.
With the right combination of soft and economic power, Poland can return to becoming one of Europe’s Great Powers, but this time with a sway that extends across the strategic “Three Seas” space and enables it to shape the continent’s 21st-century geopolitics.
The Guardian reports that EU could scrap a divisive scheme that compels member states to accept quotas of refugees, one of the bloc’s most senior leaders will say this week.
The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, will tell EU leaders at a summit on Thursday that mandatory quotas have been divisive and ineffective, in a clear sign that he is ready to abandon the policy that has created bitter splits across the continent.
Jennifer Rankin reports that Tusk will set a six-month deadline for EU leaders to reach unanimous agreement on reforms to the European asylum system, but will propose alternatives if there is no consensus.
“If there is no solution... including on the issue of mandatory quotas, the president of the European council will present a way forward,” states a draft letter from Tusk to national capitals, seen by the Guardian.
In effect this means scrapping mandatory quotas, because Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic are fiercely opposed to the idea of dispersing refugees around the bloc based on a formula drawn up in Brussels. Tusk is likely to face opposition, however, from other EU bodies, including the European commission.
EU leaders introduced compulsory quotas in 2015 at the height of the migration crisis, as thousands of people arrived daily on Europe’s shores, many of whom were refugees from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea.
Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech Republic voted against the move, but the policy was forced through by a majority vote.
Hungary and Poland have defied the rest of the EU by not taking a single refugee under the scheme, which aimed to relocate about 120,000 refugees, mainly Syrians. The Czech republic has taken in only 12.
All three countries were referred to the European court of justice last week for failing to implement the policy, the usual procedure for flouting EU rules.
Despite the backlash against the emergency scheme, the European commission proposed making quotas a permanent feature of EU law in 2016. Under its proposal, countries that refuse to take part in a “corrective allocation mechanism” to take the pressure off member states bearing the brunt would have to pay a “solidarity contribution” of €250,000 (£220,000) per asylum seeker.
The idea has been stalled for months, as home affairs ministers who make the law have been unable to agree on it.
Tusk will call on EU governments to take charge, rather than leaving Brussels to set the pace in managing refugee policy.
“Only member states are able to tackle the migration crisis effectively,” Tusk’s letter says. “The EU’s role is to offer its full support in all possible ways to help member states handle the migration crisis. But the EU has neither the capacity nor legal possibilities to replace member states.”
Any move to drop the plan is likely to upset Italy and Greece, countries that have urged the rest of the EU to help them cope with large numbers of refugees and migrants in recent years. Germany and Sweden, backed by the European commission, are also likely to contest any plan deemed to reduce the help offered by other member states.
One EU diplomat said some member states were surprised by Tusk’s letter “because it doesn’t seem to be in sync” with work undertaken by home affairs ministers working on the file.
We suspect we know one other "European" that will not be pleased... George Soros.
As Russia braces for further sanctions from Washington D.C. over their alleged role in "meddling" in the 2016 U.S. election, they are reportedly prepping a $1 billion yuan-denominated bond issuance in an effort to preemptively diversify financing risks away from the West. According to Bloomberg, the sale will total 6 billion yuan and could come as early as next week.
Russia hired Bank of China Ltd., Gazprombank and Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. to arrange investor meetings for the sale of 6 billion yuan ($907 million) in five-year notes, according to people familiar with the plans. The issuance is slated for the end of this year or beginning of 2018, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the deal isn’t yet public.
The sale has been under discussion since U.S. and European sanctions in 2014 over the takeover of Crimea blocked many state-owned Russian companies’ access to Western capital markets. A report due next quarter from the U.S. Treasury on the potential consequences of extending penalties to include Russian sovereign debt has increased pressure on the Finance Ministry to seek out alternative means of borrowing.
“It would be wise of Russia to tap the yuan market now,” said Vladimir Miklashevsky, a senior economist at Danske Bank A/S in Helsinki. “China remains Russia’s biggest trade partner, China’s enormous financial system has lots of buying potential, too.”
While Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina has said there will be “no serious consequences” from U.S. sanctions on new domestic government debt, economists in a Bloomberg survey estimated the move could add 50 basis points to 150 basis points to borrowing costs.
The Yuan-denominated bonds, known as dim-sum bonds, would be listed on the Moscow Exchange and available for investors to purchase via the Moscow branch of ICBC.
Of course, in addition to advancing Russian diversification interests, a successful sale of yuan-denominated Russian debt would also advance China"s interests in the internationalization of the yuan.
If Russia goes through with the sale, it would be the first sovereign issuance of a yuan-denominated bonds outside of China since 2016, according to Dealogic, with prior issuances in Hungary, Mongolia, the U.K. and the Canadian province of British Columbia.
Authored by Jacob Bojesson via The Daily Caller,
Hungary’s ruling party is stepping up its campaign against billionaire investor George Soros by distributing a book that accuses the financier of pursuing a plan to flood Europe with migrants.
The book, titled “George Soros,” is written by Andreas von Rétyi - a German author known for pushing conspiracy theories about UFOs and what caused the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the U.S.
Fidesz, a conservative party led by Prime Minister Viktor Orban, plans to distribute 5,000 copies to local politicians across the country.
“The book is a detailed and accurate piece,” Fidesz spokesman János Halász told broadcaster RTL Klub, according to newspaper Die Welt.
The Orban administration launched an anti-Soros campaign in the spring to halt the Hungarian-born investor’s operations in the country.
The streets of Budapest were filled with posters and billboards of the Hungarian-born billionaire with the caption “Don’t let Soros get the last laugh!”
Hungarian government poster portraying financier George Soros and saying "Don"t let George Soros have the last laugh" is seen at an underground stop in Budapest.
The campaign claims that Soros wants a 1 million refugee influx to Europe per year.
“The Hungarian standpoint is that illegal migration is clearly a matter of national security,” Orban’s spokesman, Zoltan Kovacs, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a recent interview.
“We shall mobilize the political and legal power of the Hungarian state against anyone who undermines the security of Hungary – regardless of their origins, religious affiliation or wealth.”
Soros struck back at Orban by describing his “mafia state” as “one which maintains a facade of democracy.”
Over the past several months we"ve frequently noted the devolving relationship between Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and billionaire financier George Soros. Tensions escalated last month when Orban took it upon himself to mail a Soros-related questionnaire to all 8 million Hungarian voters (see: Hungary Launches Anti-Soros Political Campaign) and then followed that up with an announcement that Hungary"s intelligence services had been instructed to "map" Soros" network of influence.
As Orban’s ruling party gears up for parliamentary elections in April - where it is the prohibitive favorite to win largely thanks to its refusal to accept refugees under a plan devised by the European Commission - the prime minister has instructed his intelligence services to map what he described as the networks run by the billionaire financier’s “empire” targeting his country, Bloomberg reported.
Intelligence agencies will help evaluate what he sees as efforts by Soros to get Hungary punished by EU institutions pursuing a “mixed-population” continent, Orban said in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday.
The Associated Press added that the investigation will also focus on alleged Hungarian members of the network.
Intelligence agencies will help evaluate what Orban sees as efforts by Soros to get Hungary punished by EU institutions pursuing a “mixed-population” continent, Orban said in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday.
Today, Soros has decided to strike back with a scathing "rebuttal" posted to his website blasting Orban for his "anti-Soros, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic propaganda effort."
On October 9, 2017, the Hungarian government mailed a national consultation to all eight million eligible Hungarian voters purporting to solicit their opinions about a so-called “Soros Plan.” The statements in the national consultation contain distortions and outright lies that deliberately mislead Hungarians about George Soros’s views on migrants and refugees. Hungarian government officials also falsely claim that George Soros is somehow controlling the European Union decision-making process. In fact, decisions on how to address the migration crisis are made by EU member states and institutions, including the Hungarian government.
With Hungary’s health care and education systems in distress and corruption rife, the current government has sought to create an outside enemy to distract citizens. The government selected George Soros for this purpose, launching a massive anti-Soros media campaign costing tens of millions of euros in taxpayer money, stoking anti-Muslim sentiment, and employing anti-Semitic tropes reminiscent of the 1930s. The national consultation is part of an ongoing propaganda effort that has been underway since May 2015 that included the “Stop Brussels” consultation in the spring of 2017 and the referendum that vilified migrants and refugees in 2016.
Soros went on to offer a "rebuttal", which in several cases read more like a confirmation, of Orban"s "propaganda":
National Consultation Statement 1: George Soros wants Brussels to resettle at least one million immigrants per year onto European Union territory, including in Hungary.
Soros Response: FALSE. In a 2015 opinion piece, George Soros said that because of the war in Syria, the European Union would have to “accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly” (“Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, September 26, 2015). A year later, when circumstances had changed, he suggested that the EU should make a “commitment to admit even a mere 300,000 refugees annually” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).
National Consultation Statement 2: Together with officials in Brussels, George Soros is planning to dismantle border fences in EU member states, including in Hungary, to open the borders for immigrants.
Soros Response: FALSE. George Soros has clearly stated his belief that “the EU must regain control of its borders.” He believes that “the EU must build common mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees.” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).
National Consultation Statement 3: One part of the Soros Plan is to use Brussels to force the EU-wide distribution of immigrants that have accumulated in Western Europe, with special focus on Eastern European countries. Hungary must also take part in this.
Soros Response: FALSE. In his most recent commentary on the refugee crisis, George Soros endorsed “a voluntary matching mechanism for relocating refugees.” He made clear that “the EU cannot coerce member states to accept refugees they do not want, or refugees to go where they are not wanted.” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).
National Consultation Statement 4: Based on the Soros Plan, Brussels should force all EU member states, including Hungary, to pay immigrants HUF 9 million (€28,000) in welfare.
Soros Response: FALSE. George Soros did not say that Hungary should be forced to pay HUF 9 million in welfare to immigrants. He did say, “Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs—and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.” (“Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, September 26, 2015). This would clearly be a subsidy from the EU to the Hungarian government. Last year George Soros announced that he would contribute to the financial effort by earmarking €430 million of his personal fortune “for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities.” (“Why I’m Investing $500 Million in Migrants,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2016).
National Consultation Statement 5: Another goal of George Soros is to make sure that migrants receive milder criminal sentences for the crimes they commit.
Soros Response: FALSE. Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.
National Consultation Statement 6: The goal of the Soros Plan is to push the languages and cultures of Europe into the background so that integration of illegal immigrants happens much more quickly.
Soros Response: FALSE. Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.
National Consultation Statement 7: It is also part of the Soros Plan to initiate political attacks against those countries which oppose immigration, and to severely punish them.
Soros Response: FALSE. Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.
Of course, as we"ve noted before, three decades ago, billionaire financier George Soros paid for a young Viktor Orbán to study in Britain. And as recently as 2010, Soros donated $1 million to Orbán’s government to help the cleanup effort following the infamous “red sludge” disaster.
But the once-warm relationship between the two men has deteriorated substantially over the past seven years, as Orban has drifted further to the right. In 2014, the leader of Hungary’s Fidesz party declared he would seek to model Hungary’s government after “illiberal” democracies like the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In response, Soros this summer denounced his former protege and accused him of creating a “mafia state” in Hungary.
One of dozens of billboards around Hungary bearing anti-Soros messaging...
Orban responded by accusing Soros"s network of using the European Union to achieve its own aims, including the promotion of mass migration into Europe.
Orban was no doubt provoked to launch the probe by reports Soros has donated $18 billion from his family office to his “Open Society” foundation, his primary tool for influence policy throughout the west. The group funds a network of dozens of organizations that fund liberal, globalist causes throughout Europe and the US. At times, recipients of funding have included Black Lives Matter groups, and even Antifa.
But will Orban’s investigation morph into a full-on, Turkey-style purge of anyone with ties to Soros’ linked organizations, regardless of their actual complicity? That, of course, remains to be seen.
Authored by Daniel McAdams via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,
Hypocrisy may be the only consistent guiding principle of US foreign policy.
Here"s a prime example of the "do as we say, not as we do" that is the core of how Washington does business overseas: In the same week that the the US Justice Department demanded that the Russian-backed RT America network register as a foreign propaganda entity or face arrest, the US State Department"s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DNL) has announced that it is launching a program to massively interfere in NATO-partner Hungary"s internal media.
So the US Justice Department is cracking down on RT America for what it says is manipulation of US domestic affairs while the US State Department announces a new program to manipulate Hungary"s domestic affairs.
The State Department"s new program would send three-quarters of a million dollars to Washington-selected Hungarian media outlets to "increase citizens’ access to objective information about domestic and global issues in Hungary." On what authority does the United States pick winners and losers in Hungary"s diverse media environment? Since when does one government have the right to determine what news is "objective" in another country? Hungary is not a country to be "regime-changed" -- it is a full democracy where the will of the people is regularly expressed at the ballot box and where the media competes freely in the marketplace of ideas.
Washington"s Hungarian media project is clearly meant to interfere in that country"s domestic political environment. Here are the stated objectives of the US government"s Hungary program:
The program should improve the quality of local traditional and online media and increase the public’s access to reliable and unbiased information.
...
Projects should aim to have impact that leads to democratic reforms, and should have the potential for sustainability beyond DRL resources. (emphasis added)
The State Department"s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor identifies its mission in this call for grantees as "promoting democracy and protecting human rights globally." So what is it doing in Hungary? Hungary has had nearly three decades of democracy since 1989 and hardly needs the United States to tell it what kind of media is allowed (subsidized) and which kind should be suppressed.
In reality this is a US government program to ensure that the Hungarian media follows Washington"s policy line. Hungarians are all too familiar with this kind of toxic interference from an outside superpower: it was called the Soviet Union. Does Washington really seek to take on that role?
This US government intervention in Hungary"s internal affairs must feel like a stab in the back to Orban and his government. Orban was an early -- and rare -- supporter of candidate Donald Trump among his European colleagues. Indeed, where Brusssels saw Trump as a gauche loudmouth, Orban openly admired the soon-to-be-president"s position on immigration and particularly on the mass immigration of mostly Muslim "refugees" that has proven to be disastrous for so many European countries. Likewise, Viktor Orban"s Fidesz party has managed to retain a high level of popularity through two election cycles by embracing and promoting the kind of nationalism that characterized Trump"s successful campaign.
Orban"s early support for Trump appeared to have paid off. Where Fidesz had struggled to make any headway at all under GW Bush or Obama"s State Departments, both of which were openly hostile, one of President-elect Trump"s first moves was to invite Orban to the White House. Orban, for his part, hailed Trump on inauguration day, welcoming in an era where national interest takes precedent over multilateralism.
As recently as last month, President Trump praised Viktor Orban, saying that the "strong and brave" Hungarian Prime Minister is "on my guest list.”
Then Trump"s State Department launched a program to undermine Hungary"s national sovereignty by interfering in the Hungarian media market. It seems national sovereignty is a one-way street for Washington no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
But perhaps it"s inaccurate to accuse the US government of hypocrisy in this case. After all, pressuring RT America with the intent of silencing the news network and spending our tax dollars propping up US-friendly media outlets in the Hungarian countryside are actually two sides of the same coin: the US government will tell you what kind of media you are allowed to consume.
If you are a media network in the United States that allows voices who oppose Washington"s neocon-dominated foreign policy they will shut you down. If you are a news outlet in the Hungarian countryside that spews the US party line, they will prop you up. Both cases are the same: your media will toe the US government official line or else.
* * *
Note to Washington: This is not 1950. Hungary has been a fully free and democratic country with plenty of free elections under its belt. It does not need you to come in and attempt to manipulate its newspapers and broadcast media. What would you do if China sent in a few million dollars to prop up US publications who agreed to push the Beijing line? What about if Tehran sent some money to publications pushing the Ayatollah party line? You cannot even tolerate RT America -- which is largely staffed by Americans but dares to feature prominent Americans who challenge the neocon foreign policy line. Hands off Hungary!
Note to Viktor Orban: You risked arrest -- and worse -- in June, 1989 when you directly confronted the communists who were occupying your country. Now that Hungary"s freedom has been won -- in no small way due to your efforts -- do not allow Washington"s neocons to take it away from you! If you do not confront this violation of Hungarian sovereignty, the neocons will continue to increase the pressure. The neocons want you out! Just this week, neocon commentator Anne Applebaum wrote that you are a "neo-Bolshevik" who has "little to do with the right that has been part of Western politics since World War II, and...no connection to existing conservative parties." Do a little research and you will notice that Applebaum is a member of the International Advisory Council of the Center for European Policy Analysis -- the organization your own government funded for a big conference this summer! Neocon knives are out for you. You"d be smart to make a better assessment of who are your friends and enemies in the United States...before it"s too late.
Authored by George Friedman via MauldinEconomics.com,
For centuries, Europe has fought wars over borders. In the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, Europe’s borders shifted wildly. As empires fragmented, new nations arose and wars were waged.
After 1945 and the beginning of the Cold War, a new principle emerged on the Continent. The borders that existed at the end of World War II were deemed sacrosanct—not to be changed.
Europeans knew that border disputes had been one of the reasons of the two world wars and that even raising the legitimacy of post-war borders risked igniting passions that led to violence.
Similarly, untouchable were the existing spheres of influence on the Continent. There was the East and the West, and neither would mess with the other.
Thus, when the Soviets crushed independence movements in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the United States refrained from any military action (not that there were many options). When Yugoslavia chose a pro-Western neutrality over membership in the Warsaw Pact, the Soviets didn’t intervene.
But in the early 1990s, everything changed.
In 1991–1992, two things happened.
First came the fall of the Soviet Union; then came the signing of the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the European Union. Border issues began to drive events again.
The border of the Soviet Union collapsed, and a multitude of countries popped up to reclaim their past. There were many questions about borders that were mumbled about.
But for Eastern European countries, other problems took precedence: establishing national sovereignty, finding their place in a Europe that they longed to join, and building a new life for their people. They let the border issue drop—for the most part.
Yugoslavia and the Caucasus were exceptions that drove home the lesson of European borders. There, outside the framework of the EU and of little consequence to others, more than 100,000 people died.
Compare this to the Velvet Divorce of the Czechs and Slovaks, which took place within the context of future European states and left no one dead.
After this, and with Yugoslavia and the Caucasus in mind, the European Union tried to reinstate the principle that borders were sacrosanct. It provided what it had promised—peace and prosperity—and treated borders as anachronistic. No one was supposed to care where the lines were drawn. But there was a problem.
The European Union had affirmed the principle of national self-determination while avoiding the question of what a nation actually was. A nation was, under the bloc’s definition, any political entity that was in place when the EU was formed. There was little consideration after that.
This is why Catalonia is so important, along with Scotland. The Scots rejected a divorce by a startlingly narrow vote. One would have expected 90% of Scots to want to remain in the United Kingdom. Slightly more than 55% wanted to.
This means secessionists are within striking distance of secession—which would not only divide Scotland from England, but would also maintain the divide among the Scots.
Add to this another critical element. Catalonia has been part of Spain for a long time, but it has considered itself a unique nation apart for an even longer time. Spain will not legalize an independence vote.
The underlying questions are the ones the Europeans tried to bury, particularly after Yugoslavia: What is a nation, and what rights does it have? Both Scotland and Catalonia are nations. Do they therefore have a right to national determination or have they lost that right?
And what are the consequences if the Catalans disagree?
This is not the only such issue festering in Europe.
Hungary was partitioned between Romania and Slovakia. Does it have a right to reclaim these lands? Belgium was a British invention binding the Dutch and French in an unhappy marriage. Can they divorce? Lviv used to be a very Polish city, and now it is part of Ukraine. Can western Ukraine secede and its people rejoin the countries they were citizens of before 1945?
The European Union promised universal prosperity if everyone suspended the question of borders and ignored their identities. It was a good bargain. But times have changed, and economic problems make borders much more important.
Europe, of course, has no solution to the problem.
That we would be talking about an independent Scotland and Catalonia in 2017 would seem preposterous. No economist would see it as a rational discussion.
Nations matter because Europe is merely a continent, and the EU is merely a treaty. It is a useful entity, and being useful is the only thing that justifies it. If it loses its utility, it loses its legitimacy. And that would also mean that the boundaries it has set would wither and die.
Almost all current nations in Europe have border issues and some parts that want to be independent. Most are quiet at the moment. But they are watching Scotland and Catalonia. And they know where border issues in Europe lead.
* * *
Grab George Friedman"s Exclusive eBook, The World Explained in Maps
The World Explained in Maps reveals the panorama of geopolitical landscapes influencing today"s governments and global financial systems. Don"t miss this chance to prepare for the year ahead with the straight facts about every major country’s and region"s current geopolitical climate. You won"t find political rhetoric or media hype here.
The World Explained in Maps is an essential guide for every investor as 2017 takes shape. Get your copy now—free!
Apparently, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban thinks his propaganda campaign to discredit Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros - Orban’s political archnemesis - hasn’t been sufficiently effective.
As Orban’s ruling party gears up for parliamentary elections in April - where it is the prohibitive favorite to win largely thanks to its refusal to accept refugees under a plan devised by the European Commission - the prime minister has instructed his intelligence services to map what he described as the networks run by the billionaire financier’s “empire” targeting his country, Bloomberg reported.
Intelligence agencies will help evaluate what he sees as efforts by Soros to get Hungary punished by EU institutions pursuing a “mixed-population” continent, Orban said in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday.
The Associated Press added that the investigation will also focus on alleged Hungarian members of the network.
Intelligence agencies will help evaluate what Orban sees as efforts by Soros to get Hungary punished by EU institutions pursuing a “mixed-population” continent, Orban said in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday.
Orban speaks often of a coming split in Europe between “migrant-free zone” and those in the west who refuse calls to “haul” undocumented migrants away.
The unraveling of the friendship between Orban and Soros in some ways mirrors the falling out between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US-based cleric Fehtullah Gulen in terms of the extent of the deterioration.
Three decades ago, billionaire financier George Soros paid for a young Viktor Orbán to study in Britain. And as recently as 2010, Soros donated $1 million to Orbán’s government to help the cleanup effort following the infamous “red sludge” disaster.
But the once-warm relationship between the two men has deteriorated substantially over the past seven years, as Orban has drifted further to the right. In 2014, the leader of Hungary’s Fidesz party declared he would seek to model Hungary’s government after “illiberal” democracies like the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In response, Soros this summer denounced his former protege and accused him of creating a “mafia state” in Hungary.
One of dozens of billboards around Hungary bearing anti-Soros messaging...
Orban responded by accusing Soros"s network of using the European Union to achieve its own aims, including the promotion of mass migration into Europe.
Orban was no doubt provoked to launch the probe by reports Soros has donated $18 billion from his family office to his “Open Society” foundation, his primary tool for influence policy throughout the west. The group funds a network of dozens of organizations that fund liberal, globalist causes throughout Europe and the US. At times, recipients of funding have included Black Lives Matter groups, and even Antifa.
But will Orban’s investigation morph into a full-on, Turkey-style purge of anyone with ties to Soros’ linked organizations, regardless of their actual complicity? That, of course, remains to be seen.
Authored by Bruce Bawer via The Gatestone Institute,
"Respect Words: Ethical Journalism Against Hate Speech" is a collaborative project that has been undertaken by media organizations in eight European countries – Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, and Spain. Supported by the Rights and Citizenship Programme of the European Union, it seeks, according to its website, to help journalists, in this era of growing "Islamophobia," to "rethink" the way they address "issues related to migratory processes, ethnic and religious minorities." It sounds benign enough: "rethink." But do not kid yourself: when these EU-funded activists call for "rethinking," what they are really doing is endorsing self-censorship.
In September, "Respect Words" issued a 39-page document entitled Reporting on Migration & Minorities: Approach and Guidelines. Media outlets, it instructs, "should not give time or space to extremist views simply for the sake of "showing the other side."" But which views count as "extremist"? The report does not say – not explicitly, anyway. "Sensationalist or overly simplistic reporting on migration," we read, "can enflame existing societal prejudices" and thus "endanger migrants" safety." Again, what counts as "sensationalist" or "overly simplistic"? That is not spelled out, either. Nor, we are told, should we associate "terms such as "Muslim" or "Islam"... with particular acts," because to do that is to "stigmatize." What exactly does this mean? That when a man shouts "Allahu Akbar" after having gunned down, run over with a truck, or blown to bits dozens of innocent pedestrians or concertgoers, we are supposed to ignore that little detail?
Or perhaps we should entirely avoid covering such actions? After all, the document exhorts us not to write too much about "sensationalist incidents involving migrants," as "[v]iolent individuals are found within every large group of people." If, however, we do feel compelled to cover such incidents, we must never cease to recall that the "root causes" of these incidents "often have nothing to do with a person"s ethnicity or religious affiliation." What, then, are those root causes? The report advises us that they include "colonialism, racism, [and] general social inequality." Do not forget, as well, that there is "no structural connection between migration and terrorism."
 When the EU-funded activists behind the document "Reporting on Migration & Minorities" call for "rethinking," what they are really doing is endorsing self-censorship. |
At least the report"s authors do not have the audacity to maintain that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. But they do urge us to remember that Islam is "diverse." The notion that it is inherently violent is -- what else? -- a "stereotype." So is depicting Islam as "grounded in a different reality and lacking common value with other cultures" or portraying Muslim immigrants as being "fundamentally different from the citizens of the host country." And it is just plain wrong, needless to say, to encourage "the widespread perception that there is a "cultural clash" between Islam and the West with religion at the heart of the "problem."" (On the contrary: Islam is, the report tells us, "a belief system that can exist alongside others.") And do not dare to suggest that Islamic culture is in any way "inferior to Western culture." Or that Muslim men are "highly patriarchal." (Repeat after me: "Many societies around the world remain highly patriarchal, independent of religion.") And do not pay too much attention to Muslim women"s "clothing styles." Why? Because doing so tends to "homogenise" them. (Banish from your mind the thought that it is the clothing itself that homogenizes them.)
During the last couple of years, many countries in Europe have experienced a veritable tsunami of Islamic migration. But responsible journalists, according to "Respect Words," must never, ever put it that way: "When describing migration, don"t use "phrases such as "tide," "wave" and "flood"" (or, the authors later add, "horde" or "influx") because such language can "evoke the sense of a "mass invasion."" It "dehumanises migrants," you see, and "constructs a false sense among the audience of being "under siege" by an "enemy" that must be repelled." Of course, much of Europe is "under siege"; this fact is becoming clearer by the day; to use milder terms when discussing this topic is to do nothing less than misrepresent reality. But that is what this document is all about: advising reporters just how to misrepresent reality in EU-approved fashion.
"Inform your audience," the report urges journalists, "about the reasons why people feel compelled to leave their homelands, and investigate what connections there may be to policies and practices of European states." Possibly, however, a massive percentage of the Muslims pouring into certain European states are doing so because of those states" "policies and practices" -- namely, their readiness to start handing immigrant families large sums of cash the minute they arrive, to set them up with free housing, furnishings, etc., and to allow them to stay on the dole for the rest of their lives. Many of those countries are more generous to Muslim newcomers than they are to their own citizens who have fallen on hard times; immigrants often go to the front of the line, while elderly citizens of some of these countries – people who have worked hard and paid into the welfare system since the world was young – have been turned out of their homes in order to accommodate newly-arrived Muslim families.
But these obviously are not the "policies and practices" to which the "Respect Words" document is referring. Quite the opposite. The transparent implication here is that Muslim refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing conditions for which they and others in their countries of origin hold no responsibility whatsoever and that can, in fact, ultimately be traced back to Western wrongdoing, whether in the last generation or centuries ago. Never mind that Muslims took over Persia, the Byzantine Empire, all of North Africa and the Middle East, Greece, Northern Cyprus, much of Eastern Europe, and Southern Spain. Ultimately, everything that is wrong with the Muslim world is seemingly the fault of the West, so Europeans owe all incomers a new life -- and perhaps even a new country -- peaceably handed over to them so that they can import sharia law?
No, the report does not quite go so far as to make this argument. But the report does caution that even to touch on the question of "whether asylum seekers" claims are genuine" or "whether migrants have a right to be in the country" is thoroughly inappropriate: it places the focus on "law and order" rather than on such things as "the fundamental right of asylum." Yes, you read that correctly: "the fundamental right of asylum." Never mind that under international law not everyone is entitled to asylum -- and that a huge proportion of self-styled asylum seekers in Europe today have no legitimate grounds for such a claim but are, like many of us, seeking better economic opportunities.
But such facts are inimical to the authors of the "Respect Words" document. In their view, no human being can be "illegal"; therefore, the word "illegal," they admonish, should be used to describe actions, not people.
The only surprising thing about this document is that it actually includes a brief section on anti-Semitism, in which it suggests -- believe it or not -- that equating Israel and Nazi Germany may not be a good idea. For the most part, however, the report is one long taxpayer-funded catalog of politically correct protocols which -- if adhered to by everyone in Europe who is professionally involved in reporting on events concerning Islam and immigration -- would guarantee a full-scale whitewash of the alarming developments currently underway on this unfortunate continent. It is interesting to note that while many people fulminate over President Trump"s complaints about "fake news," they are silent when an instrument of the EU superstate presumes to tell the media exactly what kind of language should and should not be used when reporting on the most important issue of the day.
Three decades ago, billionaire financier George Soros paid for a young Viktor Orbán to study in Britain. And as recently as 2010, Soros donated $1 million to Orbán’s government to help the cleanup effort following the infamous “red sludge” disaster.
But the once-warm relationship between the two men has deteriorated substantially over the past seven years, as Orban has drifted further to the right. In 2014, the leader of Hungary’s Fidesz party declared he would seek to model Hungary’s government after “illiberal” democracies like the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Since then, Orban has elicited horrified condemnations from his peers in the European Union and NATO over his purported drift to the far right. His government constructed a border fence in defiance of the European Commission’s plan to evenly distribute migrants across Europe. His opposition to accepting refugees and Muslim immigrants has drawn accusations of Islamophobia. And his crackdown on domestic political opponents has also raised hackles with the Amnesty International set.
And now, some of his domestic critics are levying accusations of anti-Semitism, as his political battle of wills with his former mentor has morphed into an all-out propaganda campaign playing out on billboards across Hungary.
As Bloomberg points out, Orban’s Fidesz party has targeted Soros, whose “Open Society” organizations work to spread democracy and globalist values across Eastern Europe, in a nationwide, taxpayer-funded billboard campaign that’s been criticized as anti-Semitic. Soros’s image has been splashed across billboards, where he stands accused of being a political puppet master.
The campaign is just the latest salvo in the feud between the two men, which spilled into public view earlier this year. Back in June, Soros famously accused Orban of transforming Hungary into a “mafia state” and of using Soros’s visage to scare Hungarians into supporting his party.
“He [Orbán] sought to frame his policies as a personal conflict between the two of us and has made me the target of his unrelenting propaganda campaign,” Soros said.
As Bloomberg adds if Orban’s call for Europeans to “take back control of their nations” from Brussels resonates, it could be a sign that ties are rapidly eroding in the former communist east.
Of course, Hungary isn’t alone in its rejection of western values: Poland is undergoing a historic fallout in political relations with the EU, of which it is a member. In Austria, a 31-year-old anti-immigration candidate led his party to victory in Parliamentary elections earlier this month. In the Czech Republic, a populist tycoon named Andrej Babis who’s been described as the “Czech Donald Trump.” Babis led his party to a landslide victory, making him the frontrunner to become the republic’s next prime minister. Italy"s two richest regions overwhelmingly voted for autonomy over the weekend, and so on.
That said, with his unlimited financial resources, Soros is more than capable of striking back against Orban. The billionaire financier donated $18 billion in assets from his family office to his “Open Society” foundation, which oversees a network of dozens of nonprofits that seek to promote Soros’s political values. Incidentally, the final showdown - financial or otherwise - may be not between Soros and Orban but Soros and Putin whose wealth, according to some estimates as much as $200 billion, is orders of magnitude higher than that of Soros.
Gianandrea Galiani interviewed by Daniel Moscardi
Gianandrea Gaiani is the director of the highly respected online magazine analisidifesa.it and an expert on immigration. He is a regular contributor to a number of Italian newspapers and appears frequently on numerous TV channels as an on immigration and security topics. He’s also the author (together with Giancarlo Blangiardo and Giuseppe Valditara) of the recent book (in Italian) Immigrazione, tutto quello che dovremmo sapere (Immigration. All you need to know about”).
Gefira asked Gianandrea Gaiani in an exclusive interview about his views on the latest developments in the arrivals from Libya and Tunisia and the current approach of the Italian government. Outspoken and anything but politically correct, Gaiani hits the spot about the recent change of policy of the Italian government on the NGO’s code of conduct as well as Italy’s achievements and (so called) “partners” in Libya.
GE: What caused last summer’s change of course by the Italian government and its approach toward the NGOs and the arrivals from Libya in general?
GG: The answer is quite simple. The disaster for the PD (Partito Democratico), leader of the current government, at the June administrative elections, sounded an alarm, showing clearly that when it comes to immigration, many center-left voters steer clearly to the right. A swift change of course was badly needed, with the obvious intent of reassuring disenchanted and alarmed Italians that the government was in charge of the situation.
GE: The numbers show that the arrivals have diminished significantly but that’s just that. We are still very far from the pre-2011 numbers.
GG: That’s because the government, on the other side, has to keep being complacent to the industry of immigration. It’s a network that profits – and thrives – on new arrivals, and this network galaxy is NOT happy if the arrivals complete stop. And their votes are also badly needed by the current government.
GE: A network made of?
GG: NGOs, Pro-migrants cooperatives, all the businesses catering to the migrants and last, but certainly not least, the ubiquitous Caritas and other Catholic Church’s organisations. We are talking about a huge pie made of billions of euro, and everybody wants a piece.
GE: What is the current situation in Libya?
GG: The coastal city of Sabratha was the theater of war between different militias for about two weeks in September. This has been hardly covered by mainstream media but we have reports that the two groups which are now in control of the city have received “counseling” from units of the French Army. The two militias are Ghorfat Amaliyet and the Wadi Brigade, and they are opposing the militia groups that were operating on behalf of Al-Sarraj, who had implemented a cooperation partnership with Italy. Italy was committed to financial help for villages and municipalities of the area under control of Al-Sarraj, but not military aid to armed groups of any kind.
Reportedly, upon seizing full control of the city, the militias discovered approximately 7.000 migrants packed in various buildings throughout the city. It is unclear whether the militias now in control will let them leave Libya towards Italy or they will relocate them somewhere else. The problem is, in my opinion, when you have the French and the British in the middle of operations like these.
GE: What do you mean by that?
GG: What I mean is that the French and the British are officially our “partners” but in reality they are acting very much against Italy’s interests in Libya. In fact, let me say, quite openly, that France and the UK are currently our worst enemies in Libya.
GE: Why?
GG: They simply will continue to operate, covertly or not so covertly, in order to make sure that Italy doesn’t have a leading role in Libya. It’s as simple as that. After all, the UK, France and the US knew all too well that the removal of Qaddafi in 2011 was a direct blow to Italy’s numerous interests in Libya, given the strengthened that the Italian government had under Berlusconi.
GE: How coincidental, shall we add, the recent malicious articles by Le Monde and the Financial Times, showing all this “humanitarian concern” about the migrants’ conditions in Libya who are now “held at bay” by (supposedly) Italian-paid militias…
GG: Let’s be pragmatic. In a situation like Libya right now you either send troops, which I see it quite unlikely, or you simply negotiate with those in control, regardless of who they are. If those in control are not exactly paladins of human rights, so be it. That is what any sovereign country concerned about its borders should do. As soon as Italy tries to regain (some) control of the situation, critics full of over zealous – and quite hypocritical – concern about the migrants “shameful conditions” in Libya appear overnight, ready to point their fingers at Italy as the culprit.
GE: Can you tell us more about the recent agreement signed between Italy and Niger?
GG: Niger – one of the poorest countries in the world – has asked Italy for logistic help in order to be more effective in patrolling its borders and eventually reduce the flow of sub-Saharans toward Libya. It is certainly a positive move but one that will hardly make a substantial difference overall.
GE: Why?
GG: Because the only effective move in order to really make a difference in order to significantly reduce the arrivals is to bring them back to the starting point. If they have to pay even more money to get back at sea towards Italy, with the risk of being deported again, they will start thinking: “is this worth it”?
GE: How do you do that?
GG: Given the absolute fact that practically 100% of those landing in Italy are illegal aliens as they are NOT running away from wars and political persecutions, the Geneva convention clearly states that NO country has the duty nor the obligation to welcome and give assistance to immigrants who pay criminal organizations to cross several borders. Now, it is a duty and an obligation to rescue human beings in a situation of distress at sea. That’s maritime law and the Italian Navy alone is perfectly capable of fulfilling that task without any phony “humanitarian” help from these NGOs that are there to fulfil “somebody else’s” agenda, certainly not on behalf of the Italian people.
But, once rescued at sea, these people must be brought back to the departing country. Now, this can be implemented as easily and as safely as possible. If the conditions of the “migrants” in that country of departure are not optimal for human rights or for their comforts, in that case we have an effective tool to curb this trend. People will start going home, especially given the fact that most of them are anything but poor – for African standards – and that no one is threatening their lives at home.
GE: The final question is – given the ongoing debate in Italy – about the Ius Soli law, that is the law that would grant immediate citizenship to many new immigrants.
GG: That is going to be the final blow to our society as we know it today. Those who are in favour of this law are quite careful in not mentioning the alarming situation in western EU countries. They don’t tell the general public that from France to Sweden, not to mention other countries, there are areas, so called no-go zones, that are practically off-limits to local law enforcement agencies, as the local Muslim communities have declared those areas under their control. We still don’t have that in Italy. Everybody knows by now that the left in Italy is pushing hard for this law because they think that, once naturalized, an immigrant will vote for those parties that granted him or her the citizenship. But with these hopes they are naive, or stupid at the same time.
GE: Why do you say that?
GG: Because as soon as they are citizens they will form an Islamic party, with all the related consequences. Now a foreign national suspected of ties or sympathies to terror groups can be deported from Italy, even if he or she are here legally. When they become Italian citizens where will they be deported to? The core of the problem lies in the massive brainwashing we have been subject to in western Europe about “multicultural societies”. Muslims are not interested the least in “multiculturalism”. They want their model, their values, in short their society to prevail and impose itself on the others. When the average Italian realizes this, it will be too late.
GE: Any message of hope at the end of this interview?
GG: I entertain hopes from Mitteleuropa’s countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia and now Austria. They are defending their societies, their citizens, their values from this induced brainwashing that has already overwhelmed us in Western Europe. In fact, at present they are the last defence of our civilisation. I just hope they – in fact all the Visegrad group countries – will resist the incredible pressure from external forces.
More evidence revealing the ridiculousness of the centrist position on immigration – namely that refugees can be seamlessly integrated into European society without a spike in crime or terror – has emerged courtesy of the German newspaper Welt Am Sonntag which revealed Sunday that the number of terrorism-related cases investigated by German authorities has quadrupled over the past year.
Prosecutors have opened more than 900 cases so far this year, compared with just 240 throughout 2016, and 80 cases in 2013.
Germany’s federal police estimate 705 Islamist extremists willing to carry out terror attacks are active in the country, up from 600 during an estimate in February. Germany’s domestic intelligence agency recently said around 24,400 Islamists are active in the country but most of them don’t pose an immediate terror threat.
To be sure, the number of migrants applying for asylum in Germany plummeted to about 280,000 in 2016, about one-third the number from the prior year. But the increase in crime – coupled with the Christian Democratic Union’s embarrassing showing in federal elections last month – are slowly inspiring the country’s centrists to accept that more needs to be done to limit and control immigration in Europe’s largest economy.
According to the Daily Caller, Germany’s federal prosecutor’s office can’t keep up with the increase in the number of cases. To wit, nearly 300 cases have been transferred to the state level. Not all cases involve plans to carry out attacks. Migrants from Syran, Iraq and Afghanistan have been tried over alleged membership in terror groups without being suspected of planning attacks on European soil.
BKA chief Holger Münch told daily newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau in July that the danger from politically motivated far-right and far-left wing extremist is dwarfed by the threat posed by jihadis.
“In the left-wing scene, the [German] states have currently estimated a number that can be counted on the fingers of one hand,” Münch said. “In the right-wing scene, the number is in the low double digits.”
Frustration over this increase in crime manifested last month in the far-right Alternative for Germany party’s sweeping electoral triumph. The party, while still a minority, received 13% of the vote, earning it a place in Parliament – the first time a far-right party has held a spot in the legislature since World War II. It’s now the third strongest party in Germany, and has created a headache for Chancellor Angela Merkel by busting up her ruling coalition.
As Statista points out, perhaps key to understanding Germany’s tilt to the right is the indication that the majority of AfD voters say they made their decision not based on belief in the party, but rather as a reaction to their disappointment in the other parties – a dissatisfaction stemming from Merkel’s insistence on an “open doors” refugee policy that has been proven to be a failure.
Two years after the European Commission carried out the bidding of German Chancellor Angela Merkel by approving a plan to distribute migrants entering the Schengen area through Greece and Italy evenly across the European Union, the recent landslide victory of “Czech Donald Trump” Andrej Babis and his Eurosceptic and anti-establishment political party shows how disillusioned the people of Europe have become with “open doors.” Babis’s victory followed another important win by Austria"s young conservative star, Sebastian Kurz, who at 31 is now the youngest leader in Europe.
The reason for this populist surge? Well, it appears Europeans have begun to realize that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – three countries that refused to accept migrants under the EU plan – have suffered far fewer terror attacks, as the map below shows.
Can you spot the gaps?
Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The Secretary-General of NATO said this on October 9th, speaking in NATO member Romania, right across the Black Sea from Russia’s region of Crimea (which had always been part of Russia except for the brief period 1954-2014, when the Soviet dictator arbitrarily transferred Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 — i.e., the Soviet dictator had made Crimea ‘Ukrainian’, and only in 2014 was a plebiscite actually held there in order to determine what the people there wanted, and more than 90% chose to be restored to the Russian Government). He said, on October 9th, that NATO is “concerned by Russia’s military buildup close to our borders”, but NATO actually had expanded up to Russia’s borders; in no way had Russia expanded up to NATO’s borders. NATO’s leader was importantly misrepresenting history, there.
In fact, Romania, itself, used to be a member of the former Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact military alliance of nations, which had been set up by the Soviet Union in response to America’s having established in 1949 its NATO military alliance with Western European nations. After the Cold War ended, on Russia’s side, in 1991, and has been secretly continued by the U.S. Government and its allies right up to the present time, Romania became a member of the NATO anti-Russian alliance in 2004, under George W. Bush’s Administration. But Bush’s father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, had, as the U.S. President, established, in 1990, the foundation for what NATO now is doing in Romania, against Russia — even though Russia had, in fact, ended the Cold War on its side, in 1991.
When the Cold War ended in 1991, it was on the basis of the promise by the Soviet Union that the U.S.S.R. would end, and would become its component separate independent states (one of which was Russia), and end its communism, and end its Warsaw Pact military alliance with nations adjoining the Soviet Union - that all of this would happen if the United States and its NATO allies would not expand NATO, and that especially NATO would not move “one inch to the east” (i.e., toward Russia) by adding, to the NATO military alliance, any of the nations (such as Romania) which had been in the Soviet Union’s Warsaw Pact, nor especially any nations that had been a part of the former Soviet Union itself (such as Ukraine). The U.S. Government wants to bring Ukraine into NATO, to become its 29th member-nation. But Ukraine is not yet a member, and NATO therefore doesn’t yet have any legitimate business there, at all. NATO isn’t, and can’t yet be, ‘defending’ Ukraine — no matter how much NATO might possibly want to go to war against Russia.
For NATO to be alleging to be “concerned by Russia’s military buildup close to our borders” is amazing, since NATO is militarily building up not only “close to” Russia’s borders, but right on Russia’s borders (such as in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) and is now seeking to add Ukraine as a member, but already has other formerly Russia-allied nations: Poland, East Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, and, this year, Montenegro - and is attempting to draw in the few remaining ones, but especially Ukraine, which it claims to be ‘defending’.
The Warsaw Pact was formed six years after the NATO alliance was, and only after repeated failures by the Soviet Union to be allowed into NATO. The Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was, additionally, but only vaguely, promised, in 1990, that if the Cold War would ‘end’, then Russia, now to become an independent nation, would be considered ‘again’ for possible admission into NATO, but this vaguely presented bait turned out not to be honored in reality, once the deal was done. During the years after 1991, NATO boldly and blatantly violated the “move not one inch to the east” agreement with Gorbachev, and took on 13 new members — all of which lands had previously been either inside the Soviet Union, or else inside the Warsaw Pact — so that NATO increased from its then-existing 16 nations, to become today’s 29 nations, all of which 13 additional nations had previously been allied with Russia; and, so, NATO is now not only near Russia’s borders, such as in Romania, but right on Russia’s very borders in other nations, and the U.S. is, even now installing an anti-missile system to annihilate Russia’s retaliatory missiles in the event that the U.S. regime decides to launch a blitz first-strike nuclear attack against Russia to eliminate Russia’s retaliatory nuclear arsenals either on the ground or in the air and thus finally conquer NATO’s eternal target: Russia.
NATO repeatedly accuses Russia of aggression for defending itself against American, and other NATO, aggressions, such as U.S. President Barack Obama’s carefully engineered coup that started being planned in 2011 and was finally perpetrated in 2014 to take over Ukraine’s Government to turn anti-Russian this country, Ukraine, which has the longest of all European borders with Russia. The U.S. regime wants Ukraine in NATO, but other NATO members don’t yet allow it (and maybe never will).
However, American and other NATO ‘news’media, lie about this entire matter, and present NATO as being purely a ‘defensive’ organization, instead of what it actually is: a major component in the U.S. dictatorship’s effort ultimately to checkmate Russia or else to kill Russians entirely and take over their natural resources to be controlled by U.S. and other international corporations. NATO is an international mega-criminal gang, which enormously increases the likelihood of World War III, but which also is enormously profitable for its ultimate backers, Lockheed Martin and other NATO weapons-makers, whose controlling ownership also happens to own and control, and to advertise their other corporations’ products and services in, the ’news’ media in those nations. Media-profits are thus connected — both directly and indirectly — to that military-industrial complex, which needs invasions, even if it doesn’t actually need to conquer Russia or any other country. But perpetual war for perpetual ‘peace’ is the most essential thing of all for NATO (and, since nuclear weaponry is the most expensive type of all, the anti-Russian agenda is especiallyimportant to NATO, even without Russia’s natural resources). That’s what actually is behind NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s speech on October 9th near Russia’s border, in which he alleged, “Our deployments are a direct response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine,” and, “We are concerned by Russia’s military build-up close to our borders.” He said there, “We do not want to isolate Russia. NATO does not want a new Cold War. Our actions are designed to prevent, not provoke conflict.” (Even Hitler had said, prior to the start of WW II, that he was merely ‘defending’ Germany, against other countries.) He knows, as well as anyone possibly can, that, on the U.S. regime’s side, the Cold War never stopped, and that it has escalated sharply and re-invigorated NATO itself, with the Obama-regime’s takeover of Ukraine, and he knows that the ‘aggression’ which NATO and the U.S. regime blame against Russia, constitute actually Russia’s defensive actions which necessarily result from Obama’s Ukrainian coup on Russia’s very doorstep — a coup which was even documented on recordings, such as here and here (and many other key moments) (and the key background for which coup has, by now, also been documented, going all the way back to 2011, when the planning for organizing Obama’s coup was already begun in 2011 inside the U.S. State Department), and which therefore cannot even be denied (except in the persistently lying U.S.-NATO team’s ‘news’media).
It’s all a big ‘jobs program’ for the U.S. and other extremely corrupt-at-the-top nations - the U.S. aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies in Europe and elsewhere, and their lying ‘news’media, who can’t deny the evidence, and so they simply ignore the evidence, and they instead stenographically ‘report’ the U.S. Government’s lies as ‘truths’, much the same as had happened prior to the U.S. Government’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, only on a much larger scale now.
So, these ugly facts are not reported in the NATO press, because they’re true - their truth is why they’re not allowed to be broadcast and publicly debated. Their being true is blocking those ‘democracies’ from allowing their respective publics to know anything about any of this.
We are, thus, all living in the type of situation that the allegorical novel 1984 described; but the means by which it operates, in reality, turn out to be far more sophisticated than in the fictional version.
Welcome, then, to 2017’s version of 1984 — it’s the updated version, in which, NATO is “concerned by Russia’s military buildup close to our borders.”
