Jože Biščak: Equilibrium

What is prozium? It is a fictional drug in the movie Equilibrium which has since become a film classic that everybody should watch. The plot is happening in the distant future, after the war had ended and the mankind had almost become extinct. Since the authorities of the city-state of Libria were convinced that the emotions were the origin of all things evil, its inhabitants must take several times a day the aforementioned drug that suppressed their feelings of anger, animosity, love, sadness and happiness. At the same time, all forms of art (music, books etc) were forbidden, or to be more exact, anything that could induce the protagonists to give in to the power of emotions. And any kind of sensitivity was declared crime, punishable by death. The consequences emanating from this strange situation were the apathy or the total equality among the citizens: everyone had the same thoughts, everyone did his or hers chores in the same manner and all behaved according to the conformity.

The attentive reader has already noticed that life in Libria represents the ideal of the modern leftism. Since the situation has not deteriorated thus far, that people should be forced to take the prozium, the leftists nevertheless believe that they have the exclusive privilege of their convictions being those which all of the people should follow. And if this is not achieved, if the resistance of their ideological opponent is too strong, they call the authorities to help them and punish those who disagree.  

The emblematic example of what has just been described, is the beginning of criminal procedure against Tadej Strehovec, the secretary of the Slovenian Bishops' Conference, because of his involvement in the Institue for family and the culture of life. Strehovec thinks that the unborn infants have the right to life, which contradicts the leftist lobbies who are staunchly pro-abortion. And since the media lynching against Strehovec was unsuccessful, the pro-abortion individuals and non-governmental organisations, offended at being blacklisted as »murderers«, did not decide to press the civil action. They instead forced the Public Prosecutor's Office to prosecute against Strehovec ex officio because of the alleged hate speech. The charge will eventaully be dismissed by the court; if not at the first instance, then at the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. What is highly alarming, is that the State is prosecuting something that should not be prosecuted against at all-against the freedom of speech. Public prosecutors are, in all probability, aware of this and therefore the sole intention of the criminal procedure is the intimidation of those whose opinion does not conform with that of the leftists, or better yet, silencing them. This does not inlucde only the Catholics, who resist the abortion, as there have been at least three more cases in the preceding weeks, when the politicians and those who had the power, threatened the politically incorrect individuals with the same criminal procedure as Strehovec is facing right now. Those individuals were Jože Možina and Jože Dežman, Lucija Šikovec Ušaj and the magazine Demokracija. The difference of opinion about the recent Slovenian history or about the illegal migrations, conveyed by anyone else but by the regime-privileged historians and the non-governmental organisations, is not only unwanted, but also deemed to be outlawed and sanctioned, if expressed publicly. This is, at least, what the Slovenian leftists strive really hard for.

Most of us still remember that the website ZLOvenija had emerged at the height of the migration wave back in 2015. It was used by the leftist activists who publicly pilloried the Slovenian patriots, citing their full names and surnames. Their only sin were the warnings against the crimes that had later happened by the hordes of migrants, invading Europe. They were insulted as the xenophobes, fascists and Nazis and the Slovenian government at the time did not evenas much as flinch to protect those whose opinions did not conform with the prevailing left-wing ideology. On the contrary, the government even actively encouraged the hysterical barking of the so-called philanthropists. But when the article with the title  »The List of the pro-abortion lobby that opposes the right to life of the unborn infants« appeared on the web portal 24kul, all hell broke loose. Hatred, violence and intolerance incitement were among the chief recriminations, while Strehovec was recognised as the man who would be better suited to lead the Inquisition had he lived in the Middle Ages. But their recriminations proved nothing else but their total ignorance about the mediaeval period of the European history.

The Mediaeval Era was far from being an obscure time of human history. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, there indeed followed a period of stagnation which was, however, more the consequence of the inherited Greek and Roman culture. Their disintegration was more the result of the corruption, debauchery and degeneration, than being the characteristic of the early Middle Ages. This is why the intense decrease of the European population followed and its extinction was always a possibility. But not because of the epidemic diseases or the lack of food, but because of the simple fact, namely that the European population of those times still practised abortion and infanticide. The crucial role was then  attributed to Christianity, which first conferred dignity on women. This fact is in sharp contrast with the general belief that women's lot in the mediaeval society was almost equal to that of a slave or, later on, to that of a serf. There and then commenced the magnificent development that has been threatened in the 20th century under the guise of liberalism, humanism and democracy. These in turn were again infected by the corruption, debauchery and degeneration and started to menace the biological origins of humankind. Are we going to survive this time as well as we have the last?l 

  • Written by
  • Read: 22 times

Vinko Gorenak: Kangler's 35 years old tractor and Janša's hovel in Trenta

It was the year 2010, or thereabouts, when I had participated in the talk show on the TV Maribor, called »On the throne«. My two interlocutors then were the prosecutor Jože Kozina and the head of the National Bureau of Investigation Robert Črepinko and also someone else. The topic of the conversation revolved around the prosecution of the economic crimes. My co-speakers have deplored the lack of the appropriate legal grounds that prevented the police and the prosecution from efficiently combatting the organised economic crimes.

So, I have challenged them. I asked them to enumerate what kind of legal grounds were necessary to be effective in their line of work. And they have told me that both institutions needed some sort of a law according to which each Slovenian citizen, not the proseutor, would have to prove the legal origins of his or her assets. Not really knowing what kind of the law they had in mind back then, I aasured them, in front of the Slovenian TV viewership, that SDS would immediately support this law.

And so I have started to research how this was dealt with in some foreign countries. By coincidence or not, I have stumbled upon Serbia, Italy and Ireland. These were at that time states who had already passed the laws regarding the origins of assets of their nationals who had to explain where they had obtained such disproportionately large wealth and not the prosecutors of these respective countries. If those nationals had not presented the evidence in question at the court, that they got those assets in a legal way, the aforesaid assets were then confiscated. All of the mentioned states, or to be more exact, their constabulary-prosecutorial-judicial system were highly efficient at it. In Serbia for example, one suspect lost the total worth of 900 million euros in confiscation. The confiscated premises, mostly luxurious villas, serve nowadays as a housing for governmental authorities and civil servants use the confiscated vehicles. The situation is very similar in Ireland. Italy however, has had such laws for quite some time now and is also renowned for having confiscated huge financial assets, in such quantities that the state had instituted a special, national enterprise that managed the aforementioned assets.

It was evident that Slovenia needed such laws as have already existed in Serbia, Italy and Ireland. And the law was indeed adopted . But it was not the government of Pahor that has sponsored its adoption. It was proposed by the political party ZARES, which was then a member of the coalition government. The law was introduced by Cveta Zalokar Oražem, a member of ZARES party. However, her version of the law was rejected by the coalition members and not by the SDS. Shortly before the parlamentarian election of 2011, a new, but actually a rehashed version of the same law emerged and was sponsored by Franco Juri, another member of ZARES party. One of the stipulations of the law was its retroactivity. Namely, it was supposed to be valid for the period beginning with the year 2006 and onwards. I was wondering why that was so. It was clear to me that the stipulations of any law were applicable only from the day of its enactment onwards, and only very exceptionally were they to be applied retroactively. In that case however, the lawmaker has to justify the so-called public interest. Since many of the state-owned assets had already been stolen one way or another even before 2006, SDS has decided to propose an amendment according to which the aforesaid law was to cover the period since the independance of Slovenia. And this amendment was adopted.

After the Upper Chamber of the Slovenian parliament, državni svet, had vetoed the law, 71 members of the lower chamber of the Slovenian parliament, belonging to different parliamentary groups of the coalition, as well as the opposition, with the exception of Jelinčič's Slovenian National Party (SNS), overturned the aforementioned veto. I have to admit I was extremely proud when I backed this law. By voting for its enactment I naturally had the vision of all the luxurious vilas, yachts, vehicles, gold bars, as well as the hard cash of some individuals. I expected that something similar was to happen in Slovenia, as it happened in Serbia, Italy or Ireland.

Practically seven years after adopting the law, my disappointment is immense. Contrary to Serbia, Italy or Ireland, Slovenian constabulary-prosecutorial-judicial authorities were not up to their tasks. If the latest information, disclosed in the Tarča broadcast at MMC, is exact, then the collection, made by the Slovenian authorities after seven years, since the law was passed, is more than meagre, not to say disgraceful. It includes one apartement, some cash and small amounts of golden articles of jewellery. Ergo, a total shame.

However, in these seven years we have been bombarded by all the possible media, how the public prosecution is striving to confiscate the supposedly illegally obtained assets of Franc Kangler and Janez Janša. In Kangler's case, a 35-year-old tractor was also the subject of investigation and Janša was heavily criticised for the property in Trenta, with the hovel standing on it. And the public was informed about it almost ad nauseam. But where are the villas, the yachts, the expensive cars, gold bars belonging to some individuals and more? That is offline for Slovenian public prosecutors. I wonder why that is so?

And there is more to come. The regime-controlled media do not investigate nowadays why the prosecution is incapable of confiscating the luxurious villas, yachts, expensive cars, golbars and hard cash, like this is done in Serbia, Italy or Ireland. What they do investigate into is what kind of indemnity will Franc Kangler and Janez Janša receive, given that the Constitutional Court has annulled the aforementioned law. This is unfortunately how the Slovenian landscape, controlled by leftist media, looks like. And the view is not pleasant!

  • Written by
  • Read: 7 times

Bernard Brščič: Ronaldo and the Illusion of Social Justice

Ferrari LaFerrari, two F12 TDF Ferrari, Pagani Huayra, Lamborghini Aventador LP 700, Bugattti Veyron, Rolls Royce Phantom, Mercedes AMG S65, are just a selection of cars owned by Cristiano Ronaldo. In addition to various types of private properties, the Portuguese soccer player owns a private jet, the gulfstream G-200. The price for a new one is 19 million USD. Such luxury can easily be afforded if we consider that his annual salary at Juventus FC amounts to 31 million euros. 31 million euros in net pay! On the other hand, a cleaner in Slovenia hardly exceeds the minimum wage, which amounts to a net of € 638 per month, or € 7,656 per year. Ronaldo's annual salary is 4,049 times higher than the wages of a cleaner. In other words, we could employ as many as 4,049 cleaners for Ronaldo's salary. An extreme example of inequality created by a market economy. How to morally justify such differences in salary? Are the unbelievable ball tricks of the skillful Portuguese really worth more than four hundred times the contribution of a Slovenian cleaner?

The Socialists will say a laconic NO. The market economy creates morally unacceptable inequality, and if we follow the modern-day left-wing bible Capital in the 21st century by Thomas Piketty, the inequality is only increasing. Capitalism is supposedly not only a social injustice system, but also an ineffective one. For the latter claim, they cannot state either theoretical nor empirical arguments. There is no better empirical test than the prosperity of companies in the market economy and, on the other hand, the misery of socialism. Capitalism works, socialism does not. The superiority of the market economy was already demonstrated, at the theoretical level, in the middle of the last century by later recipients of the Nobel Prize for economics Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu. Firstly, assuming the rationality of economic agents, complete information and motivation with self-interest brings the market mechanism to a Pareto-optimal result. Second, every Pareto-optimum condition is achievable by initial resource redistribution. These two conclusions, the so-called 1st and 2nd parts or theorems of the Theory of Prosperity, are the formal confirmation of more than the two centuries old insight by Adam Smith that the free market is the most effective allocation mechanism. The socialists cannot challenge the validity of the two theorems, only the equity of distribution can be put into question. Nothing is said about the desirability and fairness of these theorems since the attainment of Pareto-optimality is not related to them. In contemporary economic theory, they are perceived as exogenous, plunged into the field of meta-economics.

The market system is neither moral nor immoral, it is an amoral, value-neutral system that does not necessarily reward according to meritocratic principles but works in accordance with the contribution to the welfare of others.

If the question of equity in economic theory does not play a role today, it occupies a central role in moral and political philosophy. It is not enough for the socioeconomic system to be effective; it must be perceived as just. Not socially just, however, because this cannot be achieved in a market society. There is no entity on the market that would determine allocation shares in advance in accordance with a specific social plan. The price mechanism is an impersonal, spontaneous order, and the final distribution result is an unintended consequence of the operation of millions of customers and producers. Imposing a distribution pattern or certain degrees of inequality ex ante, in line with the ideals of social justice, means denying the catalytic nature of the price mechanism and hence its narrowing into a central-planning system. This can provide equality, but only at the expense of the abundance of goods and services.

Despite the obvious superiority of the market system, the white lies about its morality and meritocratic nature must be rejected. The market system is neither moral nor immoral, it is an amoral, value-neutral system that does not necessarily reward according to meritocratic principles but works in accordance with the contribution to the welfare of others. Therefore, the most hard-working, smartest or most beautiful are not necessarily rewarded, but those who contribute most to the prosperity of their fellowmen are. Here we can look for a reason to justify the astronomical salary of Cristiano Ronaldo. His legendary free throws are greeted by millions of soccer enthusiasts and the market mechanism for his contribution to the prosperity of others rewards him abundantly. We can frown upon the Ronaldo supporters or philosophize that the utilitarian ethics is the philosophy of pigs but, at the end of the day, Ronaldo seems to be earning his salary.

In a truly free society, social justice is not achievable, only procedural justice is. The rules of the game must be the same for everyone. If this so-called isonomy is achieved, the results of the market game are also fair at the end of the day. The inequality and the 31 million euros high salaries of football masters is the price we pay for enjoying prosperity. We must be grateful to the socialists for their equality. Let them be the same, equal in socialist poverty. Let us, with our ideas about improving the world and social justice, be rewarde

Mariann Őry: “Gathering friends rather than enemies” – Erdogan’s visit to Budapest

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan paid a two-day official visit to Budapest on October 8-9. He held talks with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and President Janos Ader, attended the inauguration of the revamped Tomb of Gül Baba and the National Trading House’s Hungarian-Turkish business forum.

Speaking at their joint press conference, Viktor Orbán showed a friendly and pragmatic attitude towards Turkey, stressing the country’s relevance in Hungary’s economic and security interests. “Hungarian foreign policy must at all times pay particular attention to three capital cities: Istanbul – which today has been replaced by Ankara; Moscow; and Berlin. These represent the three great powers and large countries within whose sphere of influence Hungary has lived its life for many hundreds of years,” the prime minister said, reiterating an important principle of Hungarian diplomacy that he has already mentioned a few years ago. He called for “balanced, well-ordered and positive,” reminding that “the security of Hungary is directly related to the stability of Turkey,” as “stable Turkish government and a stable Turkey are essential for ensuring that Hungary faces no threats of any kind on the land route for migration”.

It’s important to mention that in 2016, Hungary’s government warned the European Union about the possible consequences of the agreement with Turkey. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó said that it’s irresponsible for the European Union to sign a deal with Turkey, when the bloc is vulnerable because it’s not able to protect its own borders. After the deal was made, he also said that it was the EU that gave the keys to its own security to Turkey.

This brings us to another interesting part of the already mentioned joint conference, where Orbán and Erdogan discussed the state of Turkey’s EU accession talks. Hungary’s prime minister said that “so far Hungary has supported Turkey, and will continue to do so in the future,” accusing the EU of being “insincere” towards Turkey. Orbán called for a broad security and economic agreement with Turkey, adding that it would be necessary if the EU wants to regain its global relevance.

Turkey’s EU membership – as Sebastian Kurz already said in 2016 – is so far fiction, as major members states are opposing it. According to Orbán – as he said in a radio interview after Erdogan’s visit –, the structure of the Turkish state is an internal affair, and he has “always kept Hungary away from the bad western European attitude” of lecturing other states on how to behave.

In the radio interview, Orbán referred to his left-liberal opposition who slammed him for meeting “a fellow dictator”. A more substantial criticism came from the Hungarian organisation of Generation Identity, who held a demonstration by the renovated tomb, reminding that Gül Baba was was an Ottoman Bektashi dervish poet who took part in the invasion of Buda in the 16th century, “an absolute symbol of Jihad and Islamisation”, and his tomb is one of the northernmost place of Muslim pilgrimage. In his speech and videos, GI leader Ábel Bódi – who was recently interviewed by Demokracija – called Erdogan the only politician who openly stands for the Islamisation of Europe by – among other things – operating a network of mosques in Germany who are following central directives from Turkey and by effectively urging the Turkish diaspora not to integrate. He also heavily criticised Erdogan’s intervention in Syria and reminded that Turkey’s president is threatening Europe with “releasing” millions of migrants to Europe.

To sum up,  the current situation with the migration deal is something that Hungary’s government wanted to avoid in the first place, but nevertheless it recognises that Turkey respects the deal. Regarding the accession talks, Orbán didn’t explicitly say he wants Turkey to join the EU, but he didn’t side with – for example – Austria’s government in explicitly rejecting it. The European Union has navigated itself into a dangerous situation by signing a deal that makes it vulnerable to Turkey. It’s worth mentioning that at the press conference Erdogan noted that Turkey’s patience is about to end.

Mariann Őry, head of the foreign desk at Hungarian conservative daily newspaper Magyar Hirlap

  • Written by
  • Read: 97 times

Face of Resistance: Ida-Marie Müller

Ida-Marie Müller is a German teenager. A cute 14-year-old bright-haired girl participated at an evening dedicated to poetry in Speyer. Contrary to other teenagers, who described their encounters with refugees in their poems with orgasmic enthusiasm, Müller harshly criticized the so-called open doors policy, describing the culture arriving to Europe as one of killers and rapists. To the surprise of the organizer, who repeatedly interrupted her performance by switching off the sound system, she gained the greatest applause and should be the winner, according to the rules of the competition. However, she did not win. The organizers disqualified her, labeling her performance as Nazi propaganda; especially because her mother is a politician of the patriotic party Alternative for Germany. The pogrom against patriotic Ida-Marie gained international momentum, Facebook blocked users who shared the video of her appearance, "strangers" covered the Müller family house with graffiti.

  • Written by
  • Read: 110 times

Mariann Őry: Orban's vision, the old-new Europe

People have been slowly but steadily losing interest in the European elections in the recent decades, with only 42 percent of the voters showing up at the polling stations in 2014. How much things have changed! The rise of eurosceptic parties show that our EU membership is far from being an irrelevant topic, the relationship between the nation states and the alliance can be a central issue which can drive people to make decisions with the gravity of Brexit.

According to the politicians of Hungary's ruling Fidesz party, migration is the central topic of the campaign before the European elections in 2019. Migration is a topic which determines Europe's future for generations, and proved to be an issue which has triggered deep divisions among European politicians. According to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, even his own party family, the European People's Party is divided on migration and it's trying to please the social democrats and the liberals on this issue, in order to form a coalition after the European elections.

In a radio interview on September 28, Orban said  that the battle between pro-immigration and anti-immigration members of the European Parliament has not yet been decided, the battle must be fought, and European politics must be changed in the European elections. The prime minister pointed our on numerous occasions that both the European Parliament and the Commission was formed in 2014, before the migration crisis, and their views no longer represent that of the European people.

Taking into consideration that the sense of democracy deficit and creeping centralisation is one of the main reasons of Brexit, this is a rather serious conclusion. The Article 7.1 procedure against Hungary, and the Article 7.2 procedure against Poland are seen by many as the last-ditch efforts of the European liberal elites before they ultimately lose influence next May. According to Orban, the current EU institutions no longer have the legitimacy to decide about Europe's future when it comes to migration or even the already mentioned procedures. Many see the vote on the Sargentini report a symbolic decision, which was not really about the actual content of the document, but about Hungary's migration policy and whether it's legitimate to punish a country in this way. The members of the European Parliament were forced to make a decision, and it allowed Hungary's government to finally see who are its enemies and who are its friends. As for Slovenian parties, SDS was among those who stood by the Hungarian government.

Most analyses published this year suggest that the composition of the next European Parliament will indeed be different. The two main groups, the European People's Party and the Socialists & Democrats are expected to lose mandates, while eurosceptic parties will gain more support. Parties to the right of the EPP are expected to regroup, as their alliances will unavoidably change with Brexit. Speculations have been all over the press about a possible alliance of Viktor Orban's Fidesz and Lega, the anti-immigration party led by Italy's minister of interior, Matteo Salvini, but the Hungarian prime minister has been indicating that their cooperation is based on the fight against illegal migration, it's not based on party politics.

The European election is not only about migration, but about fundamentally different visions about Europe's future. According to Viktor Orban, Emmanuel Macron is leading the EU's pro-immigration forces, who want less national sovereignty and more centralisation. The two visions are the United States of Europe and the Europe of Nations. It's not only Orban who portrays the election as a civilisational choice, but also Macron and liberal politicians like Guy Verhofstadt. In their narrative, Orban is leading the dark side, the populists...not to mention even worse labels.

To show what is at stake, let's finish with a recent quote by Viktor Orban: “Ever fewer Europeans are being born, and ever more outsiders are being brought here. This will change our culture, and within a year or two we will not recognise our own village, our own town, our own country or our own continent”.

Mariann Őry, head of the foreign desk at Hungarian conservative daily newspaper Magyar Hirlap

  • Written by
  • Read: 434 times

Metod Berlec: »New Europe« as Fortress of the European Union

The peoples of Central and Eastern Europe have gained their national affirmation and became national states, through hard-fought efforts and bloodshed of many generations.

Therefore, they are rightly not ready to discard the roots or foundations upon which they were created and are therefore also reserved about the migrations from Third World countries. On the basis of ethnic nationalism, they are aware of their roots, while the Western European countries thought and hoped to involve migrants in their societies with their civic nationalism. But they got it wrong. If this was the case, with immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, this is not the case today with Islamic migrants from Asia and Africa. Instead of the promised integration, socialization and assimilation of migrants, parallel societies are emerging in Western European cities that are making the whole of society completely dysfunctional. Some of the leading European politicians have warned years ago that they went too far with the politics of multiculturalism.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledged in 2010 that the German multicultural society had failed. A year later, then British Prime Minister David Cameron said that "state multiculturalism" on the island failed, similar to what French President Nicolas Sarkozy said, that same year. Merkel nevertheless made a catastrophic mistake in 2015 and dropped an additional one million illegal immigrants into Germany, bringing the European Union to the brink of collapse, echoed by Brexit. To this day, Merkel does not seem to want to admit her big mistake, even in the face of Germans dying under the knives of the crazy migrants.

The leader of the SDS Party Janez Janša is undoubtedly right in emphasizing that different civilizations, cultures, and people with different ways of life, can live in peace, if everyone is on their own. "When this is mixed by force or when one culture takes on the spirit of conquest and rebellion, is exactly when catastrophes, wars, and the extermination of nations start". It is therefore crucial for the EU to put migration under control. Otherwise, we are doomed ...

  • Written by
  • Read: 136 times

Petra Janša: Dangerous Potions from the National Institute of Chemistry

If the media echoed the news of the release of dr. Milko Novič from the prison in Dob, the trial of dr. Michael Stephan was surprisingly less reported on. Why? The Lebanese chemist dr. Michael Stephan was braught from France to Slovenia by dr. Barbara Mohar who became his superior at the National Institute of Chemistry in Ljubljana. They were involved in an intimate relationship for several years. Later, his partner became dr. Eva Jeretin, also a scientist at the Institute. The latter would also have to testify in court, but she excused her absence.

If we were to live in a developed democratic country, the media would explore the background of the story. Instead, we were given a "friendly warning", not to write about this topic and the links of Dr. Mohar with 'Don Juan', claiming that we would be spreading falsehoods ... But the last trial of dr. Stephan has convinced me that we were on the right track with the article titled "Finally on Track with The Real Murderer of Dr. Janko Jamnik", published last November. All that was "brewing" at the Institute, could only be exposed by a fair external financial audit. The fact is, we are dealing with a dead person and a 'walking-dead' head of department at the Institute.

Two things were particularly worrying at the trial of dr. Stephan. First, the company Phosphoenix, whose partners are dr. Stephan and dr. Mohar. The latter is supposedly a “letterbox” owner since 2005, a detail  she did not remember. Phosphoenix collaborated with the National Institute of Chemistry and the Krka company. One of the employees at the Institute handed over to criminal investigators a document, which he wrote a long time ago as an insurance policy if something had happened to him. From the document, parts of which were read at the hearing, it follows that the laboratory of the Institute was to make certain compounds (!), ordered by dr. Mohar in cooperation with dr. Stephan, which were then sold to Krka, while the money was to be received by Phosphoenix.

And the other thing? The Iraqi, who was supposedly urged by dr. Stephan to murder dr. Plavac and who has now attained the status of protected witness, was found by the Lebanese chemist among the asylum seekers from the association Odnos, in Domžale.

  • Written by
  • Read: 284 times

Cvetin Chilimanov: The Truth about Macedonia and An Upcoming Referendum

The big political story of our days seems to be the push to deprive nation states of their sovereignty, in favor of rule by unelected global bureaucracies, international treaties and media bullies. One such extreme case is happening in Macedonia on Sunday, when the public is called, pushed and pressured to vote in a referendum that would change the name of the country into Republic of North Macedonia, and change the name of the nation, its language, open the door to historic revisionism and raise numerous territorial issues.

Greece has blocked the Republic of Macedonia from joining NATO and the European Union as part of its project to prevent creation of independent nation states in the territories divided between her and Serbia after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Greece tried to suffocate Macedonia economically in the early 1990ies, imposing an embargo on the only port Macedonia is connected to by a direct railway link (Solun/Thessaloniki) and Greek politicians have expressed gleeful expectations that Macedonia will collapse under the weight of an inter-ethnic war between Macedonians and the Albanian minority.

Macedonia survived all these threats and attacks and, under the rule of a right wing reformist VMRO party quickly built a modern nation state, with rapid economic growth based on low taxes and regulations and a proud identity, often built specifically on resisting the nationalist Greek demands. In the preceding decade Macedonians were able to soundly defeat the left wing SDSM party, which is the heir to the Yugoslav era Communist party in all its tactics and defeciencies.

Instead, it was Greece with its hyper nationalism which it keeps hiding behind the title of the "first Balkan member of the European Union" that went bankrupt - specifically because it was a part of the EU, and abused its position to borrow far more than it could repay and to create an inefficient clientism based economy. Side by side, Greece sank lower toward the living standards of its neighboring Balkan countries, while Macedonia grew rapidly, opening new automotive part plants and gleaming office buildings housing software companies.

Macedonians grew resigned to the fact that they may never become a full member of the EU and NATO, and nearly forgot about the name issue, enjoying their newfound ability to travel and do business across Europe even without a formal membership treaty, while the VMRO Government proved itself as a reliable NATO partner in all but name.

But, this situation was not allowed to last. With open and direct interference from diplomats from the European Union (including Samuel

Zbogar) and the previous US administration, SDSM received an infusion of money and was encouraged to initiate an extremely divisive campaign to bring down the VMRO Government. This party was given (still unclear by whom) detailed recordings of phone conversations by top VMRO officials, who were then split and rearranged in classic Yugoslav era police fashion to cause as much political damage as possible. Besides the funds often provided directly from the EU or US, this party also received an infusion of the extremist political ideology which we can often see on display in the West - the ideology that teaches us that there are no borders, nations and religion, a deeply anti-Western screed delivered to Macedonia, ironically, stamped with the USAId logo.

After street extensive protests, significant interference from the US Embassy to push ethnic Albanian voters to support SDSM and an attack by armed Albanian insurgents in 2015, the VMRO Government was eventually toppled and we saw what an administration approved by these international "helpers" looks like. Led by a comical and comically corrupt figure called Zoran Zaev, that Government immediately drove the economy into the ground, halting our economic growth (except for the growing bank accounts of businessmen close to Zaev) and focused itself exclusively to giving up the Macedonian national identity. Zaev signed treaties with Bulgaria and Greece which essentially give these countries open hand to rewrite Macedonian history books, demand that comments made by individual citizens are scrubbed from the media or even social media, and badly weaken Macedonian national identity.

Dozens of VMRO officials face kangaroo court trials, critical media outlets have been shut down and Albanian attacks on ethnic Macedonians go unpunished. But, this is all welcomed by the likes of Angela Merkel, Theresa May (who organized a Balkan/EU conference while busy preparing for the British exit from the EU) and even officials from the Trump administration, who insist that once Macedonia gives up its national sovereignty, it will be well taken care of by international structures such as NATO and the EU.

So this is the basic question that is put before the Macedonian people on Sunday - do you believe that you should freely arrange your own affairs as citizens of a country of your own, or will you trust distant, far away bodies where you have no say over decision making to rule over you? True to their totalitarian ideological positions, the promoters of the renaming and neutering of Macedonia are already saying that no matter how Macedonians actually vote, the deal will be pushed forward regardless, with pressures applied against the members of the Macedonian (and Greek Parliament). Still, it will be a rare opportunity to teach a lesson in actual European values and manners to the self styled leaders of Europe, by staying at home and refusing to validate their threats and intimidation.

Marco Gombacci: Islam in Molenbeck, the evil of Europe in its purest form

Belgium is an artifically created state in 1830, or to clarify the matters even further, created more than thirty years before the political unification of Italy. The Belgian state has come into being by uniting the Flanders and Wallonia, two regions that differ greatly when compared, but with one common denominator: both provinces were profoundly catholic. Religion has acted as an effective adhesive substance for many years, until some of the ideologues of the Belgian Socialist Party decided to diminish the important role of the religion not only in the public sphere, but in the private as well.

The effects of this conceptive philosophy are on display for everyxbody who would like to watch them: the famous Judaic school in the centre of Brussels had to protect its students by installing the armoured doors years ago, as if it were the American embassy in Kabul. Despite such protection the concerned Jewish parents did not dare to enroll their offspring into the aforesaid school which had to close its doors permanently.

During a stroll in a shopping mall of the Belgian capital, which boasts a playground in its interior, one can observe a mural painting of Mary, coloured in black and with Arabic inscriptions around the painting. I was explained by a Belgian woman who accompanied me on that particular stroll »that they had to paint her face black and add the Arabic inscriptions, saying »Mary loves you«, »Mary cares about you« in order to stop the constant egg tossing against the image of the Mother of God and other indescribable vandalisms«.

If one turns into the alleys in the vicinity of the old downtown and the Grand-place, you behold the church of Saint Catherine, a small gem in the heart of Brussels, built in 1874 in an ecclectic architectural style, half gothic and half baroque. If the catholic worshippers had not rebelled, this church would have been transformed into a food market at the request of the municipal council. Other churches were not that lucky and were, alas, desecrated and transformed into discotheques and parking areas.

But let us go a litlle bit further, all the way to the canal quarters, real ghettos, where one can get the feeling of being in Algeria and not in the heart of Europe. The inscriptions above the shops are exclusively in Arabic, all the women are covered and the butcher's shop sell only halal meat products. We are in Molenbeck, where the terrorists-spanning from the attacks at the Madrid Atocha train station in 2004 up to Bataclan in Paris in 2015-could have radicalised, could have gotten their training and could have come seeking their refuge after the cowardly deeds had been accomplished.

These quarters are the birthplace of the Belgian Islam party whose only mission in Belgium is to turn the kingdom into a 100 % Islamic state, to replace the civil and penal laws of Belgium with Sharia law and to separate men and women on public transportation. A representative of the aforementioned party has even refused to shake hands with the female TV host during a television broadcast because she was a woman. And the most recent example of this fanaticism occurred in a debate that had followed a Facebook post, when the representative of the Belgian Islam party and the first positioned on the ballot of the aforesaid party for the local election in the municipality of Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, at the very entrance to Brussels, threatened one of the commentators with these words: »I will slay you like a halal lamb is slain!« All of the Belgian political parties have reacted in unison against this threat and requested that the extremist islamic party was banned.

The mosque of Brussels is one of the biggest mosques in Europe. Up until now the Saudi Arabia could manage it to its liking, but after the discovery of the Salafist texts and the extremist preaching delivered to its islamic believers, the Kingdom of Belgium immediately demanded that the management of the mosque be handed to the Belgian authorities.

Christianity in Belgium is in an extreme peril. Even the Christian associations renounce the defence of its symbols and values. The Belgian Red Cross has decided,  for example, to ban the crosses from its premises in order not to discriminate those who were not Christians. Mohamed is the name that appears to be the most widespread amongst the Belgian newborns and some advertising billboards at the entry to Brussels feature the inscriptions that do not need any further commentary: »Welcome to Belgistan!« And all of this in the beating heart of Europe and amongst the deafening silence of the greater part of international community.

  • Written by
  • Read: 146 times

Bernard Brščič: Assunta, The Prohibition of Burqa and the Ragged Trousers

In my conceptual world, the Assumption of Mary will always be associated with the famous altarpiece panel painting of Titian, coloquially called L'Assunta, which had been ordered by the Franciscan order in 1518 and still remains on the high altar of the Basilica Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari in Venice.

Even if the individual is nothing else but a catholic agnostic or a cultural catholic, the abundance of the colours blue and red, the radiance of the Madonna in the sunlight and the beatitude of the Apostles, when looking up at Her being transposed into Heaven, can cause the general enthusiasm. Just as the corporeality and agitation are predominant down on the Earth, between the Apostles, that gradually change into the calmness of the spirit of Our Lady, so one can perceive that there are also shadows down there, shadows which recede into the light at the apex of the aforesaid altarpiece. Ludovico Dolce was quite right when he elevated the Titian's L'Assunta into a synthesis wherein »the grandeur and the terribilità of Michelangelo, the pleasantness and the grazia of Rafael are combined with the vivacious colours that only the nature is capable of producing«. The Assumption of the Virgin by Titian proves in a most beatiful way to what a high degree the European civilisation is marked by the Christian tradition. In a theological sense, we may have killed God already in the 19th century, but in a cultural sense Europe has always been, is and will be Christian. Or Europe will cease to exist.

The Assumption of the Virgin or the 15th of August is a holiday, but not a national one in the Republic of Slovenia. Our social order is a secular one, in which the state and the religious communities are separated. The catholic and protestant religious communities have the privilege of celebrating the Easter Monday, the Pentecost, the already mentioned Assumption of the Virgin, the Reformation Day and Christmas as holidays. Which terribly bothers the Muslims and the multikulti left-wingers. Likewise, they also find the illumination of churches and bell tolling troublesome. They ask themselves why the grunting of the muezzin is not appealing to us, when he invites the worshippers to prayer or ezan, or why the dabiha or the halal-slaughter of the animals is forbidden or still why the Ramazan Bayram, Eid al-Adha, Mawlid or New Hijra (Islamic New Year) are not celebrated as holidays as well. They ask themselves why the majority of us, the Slovenians, are opposed to women bathing in burkini in public pools and baths and why the people do not like the burqa, the niqab and the hijab to be worn in public places. The unreflected, yet the concise answer would be, because Slovenia still has not become Slovenistan or »a fucking Muslim shithole«. Article 3 of the Slovenian Constitution says that »Slovenia is a state of all its citizens and is founded on the permanent and inalienable right of the Slovenian nation to self-determination«. Slovenians are the constituitive nation of this state, Slovenia is a national state, fatherland to Slovenes. And because we, the Slovenes have never been Muslims, the expectations and demands of the Muslim religious community in Slovenia and of their multikulti collaborators are unjustified. Q. E. D.[1]

This kind of simplified explanation is not sufficient. In the Article 41 of the Constitution, freedom of religious practice in public and private life is guaranteed. This is one of the fundamental human rights. According to the assurances of the Muslims, the wearing of burqa, niqab or hijab is the free choice of Muslim women, who symbolically manifest their faith by veiling and covering themselves up. In a similar way that we do not interfere with our youth's strange habits of wearing ragged trousers, of having tattos or piercings made, so should the Muslim women be allowed to be dressed according to their fashion. I don't think so. Although wearing ragged trousers can cause somewhat negative esthetic externalities to be seen, in a free society fashion tastes and choices are not subjects of debate. But the questions concerning the wearing of hijabs, niqabs and burqas exceed this debate of fashion and address the crucial questions of the liberal-democratic system. These questions have already been resolved in France, Belgium and Denmark. In a restrictive way.  Fifteen years ago in France, the commission of my namesake Bernard Stasi has adjudicated in the so-called affaire du foulard that hijab as a religious symbol does not belong into school, defined as a public place. Wearing hijab in Belgium and in Denmark is not legally forbidden, but a more austere ban of wearing facial veils in all public places is in force in both of the aforementioned countries. Belgian law has already been subject to a test in the European Court of Human Rights, while in Denmark the lawmakers have started to issue a 1000 kroner (140 euros) high fines to those Muslim women who wear niqab or burqa in public places.

In the matter of wearing the Muslim articles of clothing, the state should not remain neutral. Islam is diametrically opposed to liberal-democratic order. Islam is not a religion, it is a dangerous totalitarian ideology, under the mask of religious belief that is incompatible with the European civilisation. Wearing Muslim articles of clothing is a symbolic denial of a free and open society. The Muslims do not demand a total subjugation to Allah of themselves and their coreligionists, but of all of us as well. They are not familiar with the motto of live and let the others live freely in a plural society. Wherever they may live, they are duty-bound to the formation of Islamic ummah (community).

If we are entitled to ask of the Hindu naga saddhus[2] not to walk naked in our streets, we are also entitled to ask of the Muslim women to wear decent clothes. And leave the Muslim fashion at home.

[1] Latin phrase, Quod erat demonstrandum or Q. E. D., meaning what was to be shown or demonstrated–note of the translator.

[2] a religious ascetic, mendicant (monk) or any holy person in Hinduism and Jainism who has renounced the worldly life–note of the translator.


A better and more practical voting system and a constitutional review

I have written a number of times over many years about voting systems in particular comparing the so called ‘first past the post system’ and the ‘proportional’ approach. The first time was in the year 2000 when it seemed to me that there was little understanding in Slovenia of the ‘Anglo-Saxon system’. Both systems have various forms but in general they start from the above descriptions.

The great advantage of the ‘first past the post system’ is that it is easily understood by the voters. The system in effect is an ‘Olympic Games’ approach where only one person can get the gold medal, not a proportional system with the winner getting 25% of the Gold Medal and the next 15% of the medal, and so on. You win or you don’t win! The second feature that makes it easy to understand is that in each electoral district you vote for a person. Obviously that person in the vast majority of cases is the member of a recognisable and serious party. However it sometimes happens that an independent candidate who is very respected locally can be elected despite being against the party election machines. The elected person is responsible, as a representative not a party delegate, for everyone in his electoral district and must serve them all, not just his party. I appreciate that in the Slovene system there are designated people  for districts but they do not have the same ‘service to all’ attitude and most people do not know who they are. The electors mostly also do not understand the complicated formulae that are used. What do most people know of Droop and d’Hondt methodologies?

Of course it often means that in the UK, with its first past the post system, a party can get a majority of seats even if they do not get a majority of votes but on the other hand the election manifestos that are put out are clear and the winner has a responsibility to try to carry its promises out. On the other hand in the Slovene proportional system it seems that the manifestos are only published to get support however idealistic and improbable they may be. They result is that the policy of the coalition government is not seriously responsible but on of a ‘lowest common denominator’ basis, and the government can be brought down by the most insignificant and self-centred party that is part of the coalition. I am not surprised that voter turnout is low.

The fact that a party in the UK can make the government with less than 50% support is in itself a restraint because the governing party knows that fact and it means that other pillars of the state such as the Military, the Police, the Civil Service, and Government Agencies also know that. These pillars know that they should first and foremost have a loyalty to the nation and this is reinforced by the knowledge of the government having less than 50% of voter support..  In addition independent groups in civil society such as charities and clubs know the same and can see that the government is not an elected dictatorship.

The argument that proportional is more fair does not hold water for me especially when you have a minimum hurdle to clear before getting any seats. As I pointed out earlier this year the 4% hurdle system, whilst trying to exclude insignificant parties, in effect in this recent Slovene election disallowed the votes of 104,000 people or about 11% of those who voted. Then we must consider the very poor turnout at recent elections of just over 50%. So that when we add the disallowed and non-voters together they were in fact the majority, and any government that is formed will not have the support of the majority of eligible voters. You can also get the strange mathematical situation with the ‘hurdle’ system that if there are 24 parties taking took part 23 could get 3.5 % of the votes each and miss the hurdle, and one party get the rest or 19.5% and get all the seats in Parliament. If you have a so-called pure proportional system as in Israel, that is with no hurdle other than getting enough votes to obtain one seat in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, you end up with a minority party usually one of the religious parties in a coalition making demands for special treatment. Then we have the variant of the alternative preference system where voters make their first choice and then their second, and sometimes putting all the candidates in order. This could result in a Parliament, and therefore government, of second-best people, or a losers’ government.

It is understandable that societies which are strongly divided are fearful of the oppression of one side by the other, or the suppression of a minority, and so desire a system that mitigates the faults of both the proportional systems and the ‘majority’ system. This is why the local devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland, with its historically divided society, is different to the main UK system.

The German system, which is not perfect as we have seen in the last election, is a hybrid one that tries to mitigate the faults of the two systems and something like this should be considered by Slovenia.

Although this somehow goes against the Slovene mentality of liking something perfect on paper even if not in practise but as we all know often ‘the perfect can be the enemy of the good’.

So, what to do?

In my view there should be a constitution review. I wrote about this in 2011 and I am still of the same opinion. It is a normal matter for constitutions to be changed and major countries such as the USA and France have done this regularly. Sometimes constitutions are completely replaced as France has often done. In general the Slovene Constitution has done a good job in the circumstances but has been weak in places, and has ended up full of vested interests.

So where do I think changes need to be considered?

  • Clearly the experience on referendums has been far from satisfactory. Whilst referendums are laudable in many ways you need the Swiss years of experience to make it work responsibly. I remember Slovenia voting in a referendum for a majority voting system but it never happened because of political machinations. Recent referendums have also been held on matters that really should be decided by parliament. They have been costly and often resulted in a vote more on the popularity of the government and less on the issues. Referendums should in the Slovene context only be on very major issues, and should not usurp the position of Parliament.
  • Governments under the Slovene constitution have not in recent years been particularly stable and they have always become unstable in their last year of office with the government as the Americans say becoming a lame duck. Slovenia should as noted above consider the German Mixed Member system to give a direct connection between a district and a member of parliament. If a German type system is not chosen then the threshold for getting a party candidate into parliament on a party ticket should be increased to 5% to reduce the possibility of complex coalitions, and perhaps a candidate deposit scheme to ensure serious candidates only take part.
  • It should be easier to have a mid-term elections.
  • Top Ministers should always come from Parliament, and remain members of Parliament.
  • The constitutional position of State Secretaries should be reconsidered. Are they politicians or Civil Servants? They seem to be both and therefore the civil service is politicised.
  • The position of the President should be made clearer. To my view it should be completely ceremonial so that the position acts as a unifying force for the nation. This may make it more likely that a distinguished and respected non-politician is elected. Slovenia should follow the German, Austrian, Italian, and other central European models not the French, Russian or Balkans styles. The recent experience has been mixed. Pahor has tried to be non-political but Turk was the opposite.
  • Immunity for politicians should be greatly reduced. The only immunities politicians should have should be against actions for slander and to allow freedom of movement, and freedom of information.
  • Human rights elements of society need to be examined in terms of operations. For example why are the courts so slow?
  • A legal limit on state ownership of the economy either directly or indirectly should be in place.
  • The position of the upper chamber should be considered, especially its veto rights. Other countries successfully have an elected senate or a uni-cameral system.
  • The position of government agencies should be looked at in terms of how they are controlled.
  • Are the police and courts genuinely independent, and how is actual performance regularly reviewed?
  • Should the Constitutional Court have more investigative powers?

An intensive debate is needed and an overhaul of the constitution is required as it is obvious from the present situation that the democratic system is finding it difficult to act decisively in emergency situations.

Who should do this review? Should it be the Constitutional Court or a Special Parliamentary Commission? And of course any changes will need a super-majority in Parliament.

But above all a country needs a democratic system that works for them and which is seen to be practical, and in which responsibility is paramount, and at the crisis moments politicians put the country above party.

So as Churchill famously said:

‘It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.’

Which means that any democratic system is not perfect and therefore may need to be modified from time to time.

  • Written by
  • Read: 60 times

Keith Miles: Is the new government a Popular Front government ?

Those who have studied the devious twists and turns of the communists in their drive for revolution and power despite unpopularity will know about the so-called popular front governments of both the pre World War Two period and the post World War Two takeovers in Central and Eastern Europe.

The pre World War Two idea for Popular Front governments had two main objectives. The first was to make a change from the Internationalist revolutionary position of Lenin and the second to try to create a united left-wing opposition to fascism.

The Soviet Bolsheviks had a deep belief that their revolution would burst out all over Europe; the Communist Manifesto stated that ‘the working class has no country’; and so they were deeply disappointed when revolution did not break out everywhere. They were also disappointed when the socialist movement split into revolutionary and reformist wings. The establishment by the revolutionary communists of the Communist International (Comintern) was the result of that split and had the aim to work for an international Soviet Republic. Various other blows to this misguided objective also took place such as the defeat of the Red Army by the Poles, and the defeat of the Spartacus League in Germany, and the failure of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. The Comintern at first directed its fire on the non-communist socialist parties which it condemned as ‘social-fascist’, but with the advent of Mussolini (a former socialist) in the 1920s and then Hitler this put the Comintern on the defensive as the fascist totalitarian system with its strong socialist and statist formula was a deadly rival. Not least because many policies were similar to socialist ones with a dominant position of the state.We should never forget that the full name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The death of Lenin in 1924 also aided the shift by Stalin to a more defensive international policy and advocacy of ‘socialism in one country’.

This led to so-called ‘rectification’ of the leadership of the various communist parties many of whom had been internationalist, which meant removal of most of the old leaders by disgrace, death, exile or expulsion. The new leaders were under the control of Moscow through the Comintern and the secret police, the NKVD. (I suggest readers read about Tito’s part in this nasty business – Titova skrivnostna leta v Moskvi by Silvin Eiletz).

As well as the cleansing of the old communist leadership and their replacement by Comintern and NKVD trusted people, the new policy included the use of front organisations to advance it through these fellow-travellers bodies, often with secret funding and sponsored public relations visits to the Soviet Union. Interestingly one of the Comintern front organisations (Rassemblement Mondial Etudiants) was the International Student Movement based in Paris where the British communist spy James Klugmann, possibly through NKVD assistance, met Tito whom he later helped in WWII as a spy within the UK Special Operations Executive.

So the focus now for the Comintern was opposition to the rise of fascism, and the so-called defence of rights and freedom, never mind that the suppression of both was probably worse in the Soviet Union than even in the Germany and Italy of the1930s. This led to the policy of supporting popular front movements which was first signalled in Pravda in 1934 and was adopted as a Comintern policy in 1935. This was just as the Spanish Civil war was brewing up, and which started in the summer of 1936, and as is well known resulted in a fascist victory, with the help of the Italian and Germany military. Thus another defeat for revolutionary communism that had hoped for a Spanish Soviet Republic. Documents have since 1990 been unearthed in Russia that show there was a plan by the communists to liquidate their left allies if victory had been obtained.

The Popular Front policy suited and fitted with the communist idea and objective of being the vanguard of the revolution and ending up in the leading position, dominating and deciding eventually all decisions. (Later to be seen in the way the communist took control of resistance in Slovenia after 1941 even though they had been allied to the Nazis after the Germany-Soviet Union non-aggression pact).

Popular front policy allowed the communists to take on the symbols of patriotism and defenders of national rights. It also allowed them to make alliances and deals even with non socialist parties. This flexible tactical policy in no way deflected them from seeking a final revolution and leading role and then dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning of course dictatorship by the party and its leader.

The biggest success of this policy perhaps was the formation of the Popular Front government in France in 1934 when, just after the Pravda ‘signal’, Leon Blum’s socialists made a pact with the communists for united action and this popular front was later joined by the Radical Party. A defensive alliance with the Soviet Union was signed by France in 1935 and the Popular Front won the 1936 French election with a large majority. Of course the Soviet Union had only been using the Popular Front policy for its own long-term revolutionary policy and reneged on the defence pact with France when it signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler’s Germany in 1939.  A possible result of the collapse of the defensive alliance with the Soviet Union was that it most probably also weakened fatally French resolve in WWII resulting in the collapse of the French Army against Germany in 1940.

The cynical tactics of the communists was repeated when Germany invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941 and the Yugoslav communists were still supporting Stalin’s pact with Hitler. However when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union two and a half months later they changed their tune and grabbed the reins to be the leaders of national resistance, of course as part of the long-term plan for revolution.

The same tactic was used after World War Two when the Red Army occupied Central and Eastern Europe. The first moves were to placate the allies and fool them, in particular the gullible Roosevelt, into thinking that genuine free elections were taking place and to establish popular front governments. These governments were in line with the longer term plan of a takeover and were led by communists who eventually pushed out the other non-revolutionary socialists. The most startling example of the use of the popular front policy was the coup d’état of the communists against the united front government of the Czech leader Benes. Less surprising of course was the Tito/Subasic government when similar tactics were used.

Should we therefore be surprised that the hard left Marxists, and former and present communists may still cynically use the tactic of the ‘Popular Front’? Should we therefore be surprised that former communists have disappeared into other parties? This is what happened in the UK with secret communists in the Labour Party.

The various moves that Putin’s Russia is making everywhere makes one wonder if the same tactic is again being employed. Examples are domination of the commemoration ceremony to the disaster victims of the Vrsic avalanche, when a good proportion of the victims were non Russians such as Ukrainians, over-pricing of gas to Poland and under-pricing to Germany, multiple invitations to Erjavec to Moscow, pressure on the Baltic States, overtures to Orban, friendship to Syriza, and so on.

Then we locally in Slovenia have to wonder about the current new ‘Slovene government. Can it be called a popular front government? Has the SD party really given up the communist revolution? Simple matters arise such as why does it not make a complete renunciation of the crimes and abuse of its communist origins. Did it think it was right to inherit property from the communist party some of which was taken from private owners? Why does Slovenia not adhere to the declaration of Europe to give full and proper history lessons exposing the horrors and failures of communism in the schools and universities? Is the SAB party socialist? Does SMC support business and freedom or state domination and control?

Is Levica the tail that is wagging the dog? Are they pursing a popular front tactic, whilst at the same time being against NATO and the EU? Are they supporting a tax and spend policy like Venezuela which will result in disaster? Will any reform of labour laws and modernisation of social security systems be blocked?

Have Popular Front Trojan Horses been resurrected ?

  • Written by
  • Read: 95 times

Jože Biščak: Are we going to allow it?

Dark and stormy clouds are gathering across the Slovenian skyline, the leftist elite has utterly betrayed the Slovenianism. The lone trees, planted in these places by our forefathers centuries ago, have defied all of the invaders. Their branches were violently broken, their trunks were cut down with foreign axes, and yet new buds always sprouted on the aforementioned trees. Now, the enemy is at our gates, with the intention of pouring the poison of assimilation onto the roots, and the prostitutes and media whores of multiculturalism, who wish make the Slovenianism defenceless, are his most loyal and obliging servants. I ask you, my fellow Slovenes: are we going to allow it?

Several ten thousand of invasive foreign individuals are waiting in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to set out northward. Austria, Germany or some other western state aren't on their list of final destination anymore. Instead, it is Slovenia, because our neighbours to the north and to the west have closed their borders and sent the troops to guard them and prevent the illegal migrants from entering. In the aftermath of a theoretical pro-immigration leftist victory at the forthcoming general election, Slovenia could become a so-called hotspot state, an all European migrant haven. I ask you, mothers and fathers, guardians of Slovenian soil which you wish to bestow upon your offspring: are we going to allow it?

For decades, the communist catchpoles and their minions have oppresed and humiliated our grandmothers and grandfathers, taking away from them each and any chance of survival. After we have gained our independence, the same lot of people, posing as »liberal« transitional left-wing politicians, persuaded us that in the name of progress, the notion of nation should be destroyed and that the traditional national values should be decomposed. And nowadays, their heirs with blood on their hands, call upon us to celebrate the culture that scorns the symbols of Slovenianism. I ask you, my fellow patriots: are we (still) going to allow it?

The deep state doesn't even hide the plundering raids anymore. Frightened for its existence and manipulating the political power, the deep state uses the law enforcement authority for the persecution of its ideological opponents. We are being brainwashed on a daily basis: they convince us that they alone can guard the Slovenian assests, that the Iranian money laundering operation is nothing else but the progressive way of doing business, that the costs of their screwed-up financial experiments should be equally paid by the taxpayer body, that they alone are entitled to live in prosperity, even if it is to the detriment of the hard working people. I ask you, my fellow taxpayers, are we  (still) going to allow it?   

We are being constantly reminded for nearly a quarter of a century that the opposition against Janez Janša is a matter of intelectual consideration. This trend, which we were told was modern, the »safest« way to heaven, and where the hatred towards the leader of the opposition was an infalliable sign of civilisation, was followed by all-from the extreme left-oriented political parties to their noble counterparts on the right side of the political spectrum. Destroying him would be seen as a sign of progress, denying him his rightful place on the Slovenian political map would be seen as a sign of spiritual growth. This is the sole reason why they want us to continue on the path that leads nowhere. I ask you, my fellow voters, are we (still) going to allow it?

They want to silence us, they threaten us by using the charge of hate speech against us. We are being insulted as fascists, as nazis, as xenophobes and as reactionaries. And all of this is their reaction to our intentions of restoring in Slovenia those values that were once ours, that are sacred to us, namely the family, the religion, the culture and the tradition. They want us to renounce our biological and national origins; and in the name of the feminism, sexual diversity, atheism and unconditional tolerance towards the foreign aggressors, they force us to commit the collective ethnic suicide and want us to be a meek herd of castrated individuals subservient to global guidelines of assimilation. I ask you, mothers and fathers: are we going to allow it?

We are the victims of their spiritual murder and we are not allowed to defend ourselves, nor to live our lives in freedom. The current school system instils the poison of cultural marxism into our children who are being convinced that we are the bad guys. They teach our children how to hate us. They ridicule our patriotism, they threaten to imprison us and wish to physically and emotionally regress us, thus disabling us to resist them. They take over the control of our lives. Our descendants are being taught to deny the thruth and they use the social degeneration to intentionally deceive their minds, consequently making them helpless and resigned to the inevitable end. I ask you, daughters and sons: are we (still) going to allow it?

The transitional leftist beast roars and menaces that its way is the only right route to follow; that it is too late, because the absorption capacities of our nation are already saturated, that the demise of the national rectitude is unavoidable and that our ideals are defeated, that Slovenians no longer figure at the top of the food chain in Slovenia and in order to avoid the physical extermination, we will have to adapt. But the world they offer us instead is nothing else but the prospect of a further plunder, attack, blackmail and abuse. I ask you, upstanding women and courageous men, defenders of the Slovenian land and inheritors of your hard-working ancestors: are we (still) going to allow it?

Subscribe to this RSS feed