Peter Sweden: "It's not 'racist' to preserve your country and culture!"

We spoke to a Swedish journalist and younger generation publicist, Peter Imanuelsen, who otherwise poses as Peter Sweden. For our weekly magazine Demokracija, he described the situation in Sweden in recent years, especially in the light of migration and globalization.

  • Written by
  • Read: 66 times

INSANE! Lawyer of the illegal migrant who stole and smashed a car: You are also guilty if a migrant takes your car!

The people of Crnomelj in Slovenia must act self-protectively, otherwise they are complicit if the migrants deprive them of anything, shows in the Crnomelj court the defence of Mitja Inkret, lawyer of an Algerian migrant. Two migrants drove away a 27-year-old golf in front of a house in Crnomelj in June this year. But within half an hour the police had already caught them.

Algerian driver Adam Sekvali smuggled across the border from Croatia to Slovenia for the second time. Border control does not work. The district court gave him three months in prison for "borrowing" a car that contained the keys and because meeting with the police officers wasn’t the most gentle one.

The prosecutor's office, however, complained this summer that this was not enough. “The crime would not have happened if the owner had locked the car and not left the ignition keys in the car. Given that the owner was aware that he was located in an area with a high number of illegal crossings, he would also be expected to act with due care and security of his movable property, rather than leaving it freely accessible. It is clear from the above that the owner made a significant contribution to the crime.” This was written by lawyer Mitja Inkret, who is trying to defend the migrant from Algeria, Adam Sekwali, in the Crnomelj District Court, in front of a complaint from the Novo mesto prosecution that disagrees that the migrant was sentenced to just three months in prison for stealing golf.

You prefer to protect yourself

The police are also calling for self-protective behaviour by people in the border areas, so that cars, flats can be locked and their property is taken care of. The village guards, however, as reported by the National Security Council of Prime Minister Marjan Sarec and the Prime Minister himself, are not desirable and are closely and constantly monitored by the police. They are also looking for ways how to fine and punish these “guards”.

A migrant before a Slovenian

The lawyer, who objects to the proposal for a harsher sentence for the migrant, also doubts that the car has suffered five hundred euros in damage, since the 27-year-old golf is whole worth that money. But the Sekvali, says his lawyer, has not been punished so far, is not in criminal proceedings and is young and in need. For the second time, he came to Slovenia because of difficult personal circumstances that led him to leave home "and try to find asylum in Slovenia".

The example shows what problems people face in the border areas as more and more migrants cross the border on daily basis.

Speech by the leader of SDS Janez Janša at EPP congress in Zagreb: Preserving the creation and protecting our European way of life is precondition for everything else

Full speech of the leader of SDS Janez Janša at the EPP congress in Zagreb:

»Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear friends and colleagues

During the last decade the EU has changed.

Financial crisis, migratory crisis and Brexit have created something different than the EU we knew after the fall of the Berlin wall and big enlargement. Huge optimism and strong conviction that EU, now whole and free, will become a world champion, able to shape the globalization, was replaced with overwhelming feeling of uncertainty and skepticism. Some old divisions surfaced again and new ones appeared. Despite all, optimism and hope exist and vast majority of European population still believe that the EU, wisely managed, is more of a solution than a problem.

This hope is crucial, because the biggest challenges in decades, maybe in the entire history of the EU are ahead of us.

Demography is our most important strategic challenge.

Digital Europe is our key to growth and jobs tomorrow.

Preserving the creation and protecting our European way of life is precondition for everything else. If we fail, after a while, socialists will have nothing to promote.

A new Commission president included all these strategic challenges into her program for the next 5 years which is a source of optimism. And I congratulate her for this courage. Our task is to collect enough political power behind her program to be implemented fully and on time.

This new era demands new answers, new policies and a strong leadership.

Unfortunately, after the last EU elections, the EU parliament is more fragmented and not more focused or united. And this is not the worst part of the problem.

If we want a strong and effective EU, we also need a strong and stable member states. Currently, almost half of the governments in our member states have minority or technical governments. Some of them are even composed (of coalition of losers?) from joint/united? losers of national elections. Grand coalitions are collapsing, new political forces surfaced and new reality can not be managed by old concepts and obsolete political tools.

This is why I wish to our new president Donald wisdom and a lot of political and personal courage. There is not only one, there are 27 battlefields to fill and as many battles to win. This means that we have to respect historical differences and at the same time avoid using double standards. Some of us were born in welfare and some in dictatorships. The fall of the Berlin wall 30 years ago was not the end but only the beginning of the democratic transition. The west part of Europe has to help us to finish it and not vise a versa. This is especially important when we treat a new EU applicant countries from our eastern neighborhood and Western Balkans.

There are tasks which are difficult, demanding and time wasting. And there are tasks which could be easily implemented if there is enough political will. Lets start with them. Let’s keep our promises and start negotiations with Northern Macedonia. Bolgaria, Romania and Croatia have all fulfilled criteria for Schengen area. Let them in, and security in entire EU will improve.

I want to thank to Joseph Daul especially for his support 5 years ago when national elections in Slovenia were stolen and when he was one of the only few EU politicians not prepared to use double standards. I also thanks to our host party, Croatian HDZ for a warm hospitality. Puno hvala.

And I wish very a successful first Croatian EU presidency to prime minister Andrej Plenkovič. Sretno, Andrej.«

.....................

Janez Janša was born in 1958 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. In May 1988 he was arrested by the State Security Service for publishing several critical articles in youth newspapers that were printed in small editions. A few months later he was convicted with three others in a closed trial at the military court in Ljubljana and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. These arrests and the process triggered mass demonstrations, in which demands for democratic elections were made. Janša was directly elected to the new democratic parliament and in May 1990 to the first democratic Slovenian government, becoming Minister of Defence. In 1993 he became the President of the Slovenian Democratic Party, with which he won the parliamentary elections in 2004, and between 2004 and 2008 he was the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. In the first half of 2008, when Slovenia was presiding over the EU, he was in charge of the European Council. At the parliamentary elections in September 2008 the Slovenian Democratic Party fell short of the Social Democrats by 1% of the votes and Janša became the leader of the opposition.

  • Written by
  • Read: 269 times

Zaev and Pendarovski hold a secretive meeting with Alexander Soros in Ohrid

Macedonia’s lakeside city of Ohrid is blocked over the past few day, uniformed police and men with earpieces everywhere, helicopters swirling overhead and private jets seen on the airport. The reason is the summit of the so-called Mini Schengen initiative, a regional push by Macedonia, Albania and Serbia, launched in the aftermath of the failed European Council where the countries were informed they need to greatly lower their expectations of full EU membership.

Ten years from Mr. Janez Janša's famous article about the Berlin Wall: Did the Berlin Wall really come down on both sides?

»It has become fairly obvious that the EU will be able to realise its original goals in the following decades only by expanding its influence on the outside world. Some people define this influence as the ability to co-design globalisation. But it is important never to lose sight of the founding objectives of the EU. The EU exists because Europeans share basic values of personal, political and economic freedom, values that must be defended,« wrote Mr. Janez Janša about the Berlin Wall ten years ago.

First Published December 1, 2009 (European View).

»In the spring and summer of 1989, a series of fateful events heralded the end of the Cold War and anticipated the fall of the Berlin Wall. I watched it all from a prison near Ljubljana. The victory of Solidarity in the Polish elections, which were only partially free, the turbulent Congress of the People's Deputies in Moscow, the historic visits and meetings of USSR President Gorbachev in Bonn, Vatican, Beijing, Berlin and Malta (where he met with the US President), the fall of the Iron Curtain between the Hungarian–Austrian border and the protests in the cities of East Germany all had a powerful influence on circumstances both in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and in Slovenia. Two decades ago Slovenia was just one of the socialist republics of Yugoslavia, having a similar status to the republics in the former USSR. The events in Europe were partially overshadowed by the massacre at Tiananmen Square and the death of the Iranian leader Khomeini. These stirring events around the world increased the dramatic effect of the times, which I managed to observe only through prison bars.

For us political prisoners, the hopes that the winds of change might blow over the whole of Eastern and Central Europe were that much stronger. In spring of 1988, we had been arrested by the Communist political police and convicted before the military court in Ljubljana in a process closed to the public and in which we were denied the right to an attorney. Slovenia experienced massive protests and at that time the Committee for Protection of Human Rights led by Igor Bavčar was set up. Its membership grew to 100,000 people in just 2 months.1

1
The State Security Service, directly responsible to the League of Communists and its President, Milan Kučan, arrested Janez Janša and David Tasič in May and June 1988. Respectively a contributor to and the editor of the youth magazine Mladina, Janša and Tasič were both handed over to the military court of the Yugoslav People's Arms. The Slovenian staff sergeant Ivan Borštner was arrested by the military security service. In the infamous Trial of the Four, the editor of Mladina magazine, Franci Zavrl, was also convicted. The Communist authorities wanted to scare the public, who demanded democratic changes and respect for human rights. The youth magazine Mladina turned into a venue for publishing critical articles on Communism, the privileged position of the Communist and military elite and on sovereignty, supporting political dissidents throughout Yugoslavia and Europe. (After being taken over by former Communist activists, Mladina is nowadays, despite the same name, a weekly paper with a totally different orientation.) For the first time after the 1945 Communist takeover of Slovenia there were mass demonstrations, named the Slovene Spring, which were key to the first Slovenian democratic elections.

The Communist authorities feared the effects of the riots, so we received relatively mild sentences entailing imprisonment from 1 to 4 years. Despite the public protests, the Slovenian Communist authorities decided to carry out our sentences, all the while hoping that the changes in Eastern and Central Europe would not deliver fatal blows to the regimes in Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. They were also counting both on the Western world, which feared the break-up of the Soviet Union, and on the subsequent rise of danger due to weak control over the nuclear arsenal of Soviet Union, and they dreaded the outbreak of ethnic conflicts should the SFRY collapse.

Much to the dismay of the Slovenian Communists, their hopes were wrong. Not only were there formal changes of authority, but the market economy and free elections in the Soviet Union and the SFRY were also introduced, followed furthermore by the collapse of both socialist empires. The collapse of the great USSR was relatively well controlled, whereas the small empire (SFRY) erupted in a rage of ethnic cleansing and a clash of arms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and finally in Kosovo.

Despite all this, we can see from a 20-year perspective that the hopes cherished by the leaders of the Communist regime in Belgrade and Ljubljana were not entirely unfounded. Today, a closer inspection of these ideas shows that there is a difference between Ljubljana and Moscow on one hand, and the capitals of other former Communist states in Europe on the other. Just as the most severe forms of break-up of the small empire 15 or 20 years ago demonstrated this difference, so does the current recommunisation of Slovenia and the western Balkans. Certain remnants of the Communist era, however, are much more persistent in the ruins of the small empire than they are in the countries that were once a part of the large Red Empire.

The hope of the zealous activists of Ljubljana and Belgrade that Communism would survive in a particular form due to its authentic structure was based upon certain convictions. Part of the former Communist doctrine of Ljubljana and Belgrade was the prevailing belief that the Communist revolutions in the Soviet Union and the SFRY were authentic, as opposed to those of other countries into which Communism was brought on the bayonets of Red Army forces. Although under Gorbachev's leadership perestroika was in full swing in the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav Communists held firmly to this notion. It was stated in the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) General Staff plan and named Okop (Rampart). On the basis of this concept the YPA carried out armed interventions in Slovenia in 1991 and later in Croatia. The concept of authenticity was widely promoted by one of the creators of the Yugoslav Communist repressive apparatus immediately following the death of the dictator Josip Broz Tito. This individual was Stane Dolanc, Tito's former right-hand man, Secretary of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and Internal Affairs Secretary. He was a personal friend of the leading Slovenian Communist politician Milan Kučan in 1990. When Kučan gave up his role as President of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Slovenia and ran for President of Slovenia, Dolanc wrote in his publicity brochure:

We are lucky—Mr. Milan Kučan knew how to take advantage of this at the right time, at least I hope so; we had an original, autochthonic revolution that was not brought on by the power of the Soviet bayonets. So this is something completely different than in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania or East Germany.2

2
Stane Dolanc, in Milan Kučan/Igor Savič (The Emonica Snapshot Collection; Ljubljana: Emonica, 1990). Dolanc began his political career as the founder and manager of the political journalism school in Ljubljana (now known as the Faculty of Social Sciences), which still teaches new generations of journalists without maintaining a sufficiently critical distance from totalitarian Communism.

The leading Slovenian Communists and YPA generals were convinced that socialism as a one-party regime might survive in Yugoslavia, or at least in Slovenia, Serbia and the Soviet Union, perhaps by taking on a somewhat modernised form. Their belief was based on the concept of a thorough cleansing of the population after the victory of the Communist revolutions in both countries. The cleansings, which had physically removed any trace of political competition in Slovenia after 1945, were at least as thorough as those carried out in the Soviet Union under the harsh terrorist regime run by Joseph Stalin. After the democratic changes in Slovenia in 1990, over 600 burial places were found in an area of 20,000 km2 populated by 2 million people. Many of the burial sites are considerably larger than the ones in Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The last massive burial ground was discovered in 2009 in the deserted mine of Huda Jama, 40 km from the capital of Slovenia. The deserted mineshafts hold thousands of partly disintegrated bodies and unburied male and female skeletons, mostly without any gunshot wounds. In 1945 the Communists simply threw their victims down the deserted mineshafts while still alive and entombed them within the walls. The actual or potential opponents of the Communist regime who were not killed right after the end of war and Communist revolution either fled abroad or ended up in concentration camps and prisons. The number of political prisoners in Slovenia rose to thousands. Throughout all the years of the Communist regime up to 1988, show trials were organised during which totally innocent people were sentenced to death or sent to prison. Since the cleansing and mass killings were done by domestic Communists, normally in their own environment, the killings were more thorough than the ones the Soviet soldiers or KGB executed in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe. Furthermore, many civilians who belonged to the Communist side also had blood on their hands. They feared being exposed for the crimes they had committed and for their complicity, so they carried out mass killings of whole families.

It was not just the terror caused by such events; it was the physical destruction of the political opposition that made it possible for the dictator Tito and his successors to rule for years to come. That is why in 1989 they presumed that any grounds for a strong opposition that could fight back had been destroyed through the decades. They presumed that they could maintain most of their power and continue to rule, even if free elections were formally carried out. They believed that the thousands of their officers who had bathed their hands in blood would do everything necessary to avoid a real change of authority.

They launched a large-scale publicity offensive, claiming that the tens of thousands, including women and children, who were killed had collaborated with the Nazi and fascist regimes. Prior to the formal changes in 1989, they had started to privatise the national and the local media, thus practically maintaining their complete influence over all media until today. Anybody who dared to ask questions regarding the Communist cleansing and mass killings was immediately considered to be a fellow of collaborationism and the Nazi regime.

It is now 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and 5 years since most of the former Communist countries of both Eastern and Central Europe have joined the EU and NATO, and yet all that has just been described raises the question of whether it is appropriate today to merely hold a big celebration, or whether it would be wise to consider the warning signs, too. Have we overlooked something during this period of great change? Have we studied the reasons for the events in Srebrenica enough? Now that we are part of the EU, have we asked ourselves how it was possible for Milošević, Mladić and other former Yugoslav Communists to decide recklessly and without any hesitation on the destruction and killing of thousands of people by following exactly the same patterns that their role models used in 1945? How is it possible that the ideology of crime managed to survive to such an extent and thus cause the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the middle of the European continent?

To those of us living in Slovenia, the answers seem more obvious. Josip Broz Tito, who held up the Communist regime and was directly responsible for the mass killings of tens of thousands of people without any trials after the war and for the revolution in Yugoslavia, nowadays still enjoys a certain respect and high reputation throughout all of south-eastern Europe—this despite the fact that the public is relatively well aware of the crimes he committed. The neo-Communist propaganda nowadays is extremely powerful. Every time a new burial site was discovered in Slovenia during the last few decades, the mass media added two comments to the discovery. First, all the victims found in the burial ground were automatically proclaimed to be collaborators of the Nazi and fascist regime, even if the burial grounds were filled with women's and children's bodies. Later some strict appeals were made that the country not deal with ‘digging up the bones’ and wasting money, as people would not live any better as a result. In the end the propagandists created a ‘rational’ explanation that Josip Broz Tito was, despite the crimes he had committed, a leader of historical importance, in charge of the global Non-Aligned Movement and Yugoslav self-managed socialism, under which all the nations had lived better lives and enjoyed more equality than in today's era of capitalism.1

3
The belief of many Slovenians that people had better lives in Communist times has of course no basis in empirical data but is largely a result of propaganda. Prior to the Second World War, which the Communists used to carry out the revolution and establish a dictatorship, the average salary in Slovenia was more than 70% of that in neighbouring Austria. In 1989, at the end of the Communist regime in Slovenia, the average salary barely reached 30% of the average salary in Austria.

But of course, in a normal society it is not possible to condemn a crime and idolise the criminals at the same time. The same problem exists in Moscow; or, to put it differently, the EU has a problem with Moscow because of this same contradiction. It is not possible to condemn the crimes that Stalin and Lenin committed and at the same time idolise them as great leaders.

The denazification of Germany decades ago provided grounds for the current EU. Today we still have to deal with the decommunisation of the East, or we may face the same historical horrors we faced in Srebrenica. The two centres of the so-called authentic Communist revolution, Moscow and former Yugoslavia, pose the biggest threat. Today's generation in the Soviet Union does not possess the knowledge about the times prior to the Communist revolution, as all members of the non-Communist intelligentsia in the time of Lenin and Stalin were exiled or physically destroyed. The cleansing, furthermore, removed a large part of the educated Communists. Nevertheless, the former Russian president Vladimir Putin has laid flowers on a mass grave of people killed during the period of Stalin's cleansing. He did this at the military testing ground near Moscow and harshly condemned the extent of the crimes committed. In August 2009, on the seventieth anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, as Prime Minister of the Russian federation, he addressed a letter to the Polish people condemning the pact between Hitler and Stalin. Up to this day, the Slovenian Communists still have not clearly condemned this pact. When it was signed, they publicly defended it. The majority of Slovenian media today, on the seventieth anniversary of Hitler's attack on Poland, refuse to mention that Poland was attacked and partly occupied by Stalin's Soviet Union as well.

Due to thorough and massive Communist cleansing, only a small part of the former intelligentsia survived in Slovenia, as was the case in the former Soviet Union. Among all regions of former Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing in Slovenia was the most severe. Long after the revolution, the children of non-Communist families who survived ethnic cleansing were prevented from succeeding or from climbing the social ladder in the nationalised economy and institutions, even if they showed skills and competence. In order to gain a position that was relatively well respected, membership in the League of Communists was required.

The consequences of those conditions can be very readily observed in Slovenia even today. Let me name but a few of the most important ones:

1.

In the spring of 2009, when the Huda Jama burial grounds were opened and the cameras of national TV captured the horrifying consequences of Communist crimes, the president of the Communist veterans' organisation, Janez Stanovnik, tried to deny his own responsibility by claiming that the mass killings after the end of the war were executed by direct order of Marshal Tito and that Tito was to be held exclusively responsible. After this statement the public demanded that many of the remaining monuments and the name of the former Yugoslav dictator be removed from Slovenian cities and squares. The parties of the ruling left coalition fought fiercely against this demand. The youth organisation of the ruling political party, the Social Democrats (the legal and material successor of the former Communist Party), published a press release in which they defended the actions of Tito and claimed that the time during which the mass crimes were committed was a time of progress for Yugoslavia. When the national TV asked the President of Slovenia, Danilo Turk, to comment on the discovery of the massive burial grounds at Huda Jama, he said that the question was of marginal importance and refused to comment any further. The leftist parties in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, under the authority of the Mayor Zoran Janković, adopted a decision at City Council that one of the main roads entering the city be named after Tito. The street with his name existed in Ljubljana until the free elections in 1990 and was then renamed. After 20 years the Slovenian neo-Communists managed to reach a point of return

2.

At the same time that the post-Communists in Ljubljana were deciding to name the street after Tito, the European Parliament (EP) adopted the resolution on European awareness and totalitarianism, in which it condemned all totalitarian regimes, honoured their victims and proposed to the Member States to mark 23 August as the day to remember the victims of all totalitarian regimes in Europe. In Slovenia the resolution was received with strong opposition by the post-Communist forces, and the government declared that 23 August would not be marked in any way. The government representative then made an official statement in Parliament, saying that the government of Prime Minister Borut Pahor did not support the resolution of the EP. The representatives of the Communist veterans' organisation fought fiercely against the resolution. A smaller ceremony was organised on 23 August 2009 by the Centre of National Reconciliation that was set up a few years ago, but no member of the government or governing coalition attended the event

3.

A similar resolution to that of the EP was adopted this year by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. One of the initiators of this resolution was also the deputy of the Italian minority in the Slovenian Parliament, Roberto Batelli. After the resolution—for which a large majority of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted—was adopted, some mild protests from Moscow followed: they did not agree with the fact that all the totalitarian regimes should be equally treated, in this case referring to National Socialism and Communism. Roberto Batelli, the Slovenian member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, was forced to face strong pressures, media attacks and even demands to resign. The Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs made an official statement, distancing itself from Batelli's actions

4.

When the leftist post-Communist coalition took up power in 2008, the Minister of Finance, Franci Križanič, took on the former agent of the secret Communist police (State Security Service), Drago Isajlović, as his adviser at the Minister's Office. Isajlović, a member of the Social Democrat Party, had personally arrested David Tasič and myself in 1988, and was thereafter known as someone who personified Communist repression. Isajlović took the job of adviser even though he lacked proper qualifications and skills in the field of finance, because the Minister of Finance claimed him as a long-time friend. In the end, even Prime Minister Borut Pahor agreed to Isajlović's employment, although there were some public protests because of it. This particular case, however marginal it may be, carries a symbolic meaning. Slovenia is the only post-Communist country that is now a member of EU in which no form of even the mildest decommunisation was carried out after the fall of the Berlin Wall and a series of democratic changes in the beginning of the 1990 s. Moreover, almost no archives of the former political police are available to public. The post-Communist parties have consistently prevented any such discoveries from being made, and in 1997 the Slovenian Parliament voted against the approval of the Resolution of the Council of Europe No. 1096 regarding the dismantling of the former totalitarian Communist regimes. Nowadays in Slovenia, many of the former employees and collaborators of the Communist secret police, who severely violated human rights in the previous regime, still hold important positions in the field of justice, prosecution services, diplomacy, economy, administration, media editorial boards and even secret services. The last president of the Communist Party in the period before free elections later became a Constitutional Court judge, and his successor was the President of the Programme Committee of the national TV for many years and is now the President of the Olympic Committee of Slovenia

5.

Such circumstances explain, in their particular way, the frequently repeated statement from the 1990 s that ‘the Berlin Wall came down on both sides’. This position originated with the former President of Slovenia and the League of Communists of Slovenia, Milan Kučan, who thus substantiated his defence of the pre-democratic regime and rejected any kind of change that might permanently destroy the Communist legacy in Slovenia, upon which the authority of the post-Communist groups is based. These are the three pillars of ideology, propaganda and financial strength. Paradoxically, today's successors and advocates of the Communist regime mostly represent the wealthiest classes of society in Slovenia. After the end of his third term in office, Kučan set up a civilian association called Forum 21, which consisted largely of individuals who had become extremely rich in the last decade and who now own some of the largest Slovenian companies. Certain people drew attention to the gap between the left-wing political orientation of Forum 21 and the extreme wealth of its members, asking Kučan why there were no lower social classes among the members. He was also asked where the workers and proletarians were, and he cynically replied: ‘The proletarians are where they always were. At their workplace’.


Europe can permanently sustain itself only by being the Europe of values. Its institutions are of great importance and so is its progress in general. The European foundation, however, will be exposed to a much greater danger if its values are not strengthened than it would be without a new institutional treaty. We must always keep this in mind, particularly today on the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and before the integration of the western Balkan countries or countries from the Eastern partnership takes place. The EU must be able to demand that candidate states be able to consistently clarify all events of the past. This means eliminating both extreme nationalistic measures and ambivalent attitudes towards crime; that is, allowing the use of Communist methods to achieve the physical destruction of one's opponent.

The western Balkan countries that have yet to become EU Member States should also examine their history. Their past experiences made them fight fiercely and brought about the ideology that the end justifies the means. It is not enough to perceive the actions of Milošević and Mladić as extremely nationalistic. Something else is needed to fully explain the enormity of the brutal crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and Kosovo. This is the junction of nationalism and Communist ideology. It is the end product of the Yugoslav Communist and military academies, which taught that the essential objective of the class struggle is the physical destruction of the opponent. This junction produced the National Socialism of the late twentieth century, at a time when we believed such a monstrosity could not be possible anymore. This is probably the reason why the horror-based ideology in the Balkans has remained somewhat in the background of studies and research. A further reason is that the mighty remains of Communism in the area of south-eastern Europe obscured the past very well and tried to keep evidence below the surface, so that the West would not start searching for deeper meanings and reasons for the horrors in Srebrenica and the Balkan tragedy in general. At the same time, it seemed that the events taking place in the western Balkans were of lesser importance, a background drama that would not have any significant impact in the main political theatre.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War also meant the beginning of globalisation, the spread of new information and communication technologies and the expansion of religious extremism; this last being just a step away from the destructive ideologies of the twentieth century. As is the case with fascism, Communism and National Socialism, the end justifies the means in religious extremism, and crime is a legitimate tool to achieve it. Religious extremism also carries with it the fanatical willingness to directly sacrifice one's own life to achieve a certain goal. That is why it seems more dangerous at first sight, although in fact it is not. It does not seem possible that such extreme actions would cause as many casualties and such enormous destruction of civilisation as did Communism in the Soviet Union or the SFRY, or National Socialism in one part of Europe. The Communist method of destruction was applied at the time of the Communist revolution in Yugoslavia and afterwards. It was used in Srebrenica a decade and a half ago. That method mobilised the ones who executed the crimes, appealing to their belief that they and their own race would benefit immediately, not after death, from the extreme evil they brought upon other people. History has proven that it is considerably easier to attract masses to gain direct benefits than to attract those willing to sacrifice themselves. The deeper essence of the danger lurking behind the rise of totalitarian ideologies is that Communism in the Balkans can always simply be combined with extreme nationalism. That is why the events in Srebrenica took place. Crimes of such magnitude never happened anywhere else in Europe in recent times—not even in the former Soviet Union, where the great Red Empire collapsed.

The EU was created more than half a century ago and now, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and 5 years after the great enlargement, it is gradually reaching the stage of clearly defining its own, or better yet, European interests. European interests have, of course, been present throughout this time, or else the EU would not have been created, let alone have reached the current stage of development and internal cohesion over its 50 years of existence. Those interests, however, were focused on the founding aims of the EU: peace and stability, and the economic development of Europe. But two more events took place during this time. The world experienced globalisation and became more interdependent than ever before. The EU today is capable of taking a stand on hundreds of matters which divided individual Member States 20 years ago due to diametrically opposing interests.

It has become fairly obvious that the EU will be able to realise its original goals in the coming years only by expanding its influence on the outside world. Some people would define this as the ability to co-design globalisation. This should be done so as to protect the core values upon which the EU was built and thus provide further development on the basis of these values. It is therefore even more important never to lose sight of the founding objectives of the EU, neither through elaborate internal dealings or in the process of enlargement. Should we fully accept the notion that the Berlin Wall came down on both sides in terms of values, and that the united EU of today represents a conglomeration of values from both sides of the Wall—both democracy and Communism—then we are open to lethal viruses that would infect the European body and, last but not least, lead to the risk of a Katyn massacre, Huda Jama and Srebrenica happening once again.«

.....................

Janez Janša was born in 1958 in Ljubljana, Slovenia. In May 1988 he was arrested by the State Security Service for publishing several critical articles in youth newspapers that were printed in small editions. A few months later he was convicted with three others in a closed trial at the military court in Ljubljana and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. These arrests and the process triggered mass demonstrations, in which demands for democratic elections were made. Janša was directly elected to the new democratic parliament and in May 1990 to the first democratic Slovenian government, becoming Minister of Defence. In 1993 he became the President of the Slovenian Democratic Party, with which he won the parliamentary elections in 2004, and between 2004 and 2008 he was the Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. In the first half of 2008, when Slovenia was presiding over the EU, he was in charge of the European Council. At the parliamentary elections in September 2008 the Slovenian Democratic Party fell short of the Social Democrats by 1% of the votes and Janša became the leader of the opposition.

  • Written by
  • Read: 258 times

55 years have passed since Ronald Reagan gave his 'A Time for Choosing' speech: Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free," said Ronald Reagan in an address to the annual meeting of the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce (30 March 1961).

Three years later, on October 27, 1964 at the Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan gave what would become one the greatest memorable speeches. Entitled “A Time For Choosing” it would come to be known as simply “The Speech.”

Soon afterwards, Reagan was asked to run for Governor of California; he ran for office and won election in 1966.

 A TIME FOR CHOOSING (The Speech – October 27, 1964)

»Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government“—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.«

  • Written by
  • Read: 261 times

Technology giants pursue a silent purge of "right-minded criminals"

Last Thursday, Red Ice TV became the latest channel suppressed by "Big Technology" oligarchs.

Red Ice TV is one of thirty right-wing and Christian channels that the Anti-Defamation League has listed on its blacklist under the lump sum indictment of "anti-Semitism." Youtube already deleted some of the most popular videos of spouses Henrik Plamgreen and Lana Lokteff published by Red Ice TV in August, but this did not satisfy the ADL, which demanded a complete ban, which came true on Thursday.

Otherwise, tech giants are quietly censoring more and more right-wing, Christian and conservative websites and channels. In doing so, they rely on a study compiled by a group of academics at George Washington University who recommends that technology giants censor "right-wing thought criminals" (which is taken from Orwell's 1984) silently, piece by piece, through various pretexts and as seamlessly as possible to avoid protests and allegations of bias.

The purpose, of course, is clear, to bring down the critics who proclaim fake news and biased propaganda propagated by the globalist left-wing liberal media. In addition, major tech companies that are firmly on the Democrats' side are trying to dissuade Republicans during the 2020 campaign, especially President Trump, who unruly bypassing the big media during the 2016 election campaign and directly addressing the voters with great success.

  • Written by
  • Read: 145 times

Quid pro quo at the biased Constitutional Court

In the last couple of days, Slovenia has been shaken by another judicial scandal. Investigative journalists revealed that Constitutional Court Judge Matej Accetto secretly worked for former Prime Minister Miro Cerar and his party SMC. Moreover, in exchange for his work for the party, he was allegedly appointed a Constitutional Court Judge. What is even worse is that Mr Accetto, after already being a Constitutional court judge, publicly lied that he hardly knows Miro Cerar. The most worrying thing about the scandal is that he always adjudicated in favour of Miro Cerar’s party - SMC.

Former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, dr. Boštjan M. Zupančič commented on the affair saying that it would be most elegant if Accetto resigned on his own. “If he was smart, he would exclude himself. But the biggest problem is that Mr Accetto lied. Not only did he lie, he also misled the Constitutional Court, which issued a decision affirming his impartiality based on his false allegations,” said dr. Boštjan M. Zupančič.

  • Written by
  • Read: 316 times

Denying parliamentary oversight of the Slovenia's intelligence and security agency is a dangerous attack on parliamentary democracy and system of democratic controls

The director of the Slovenia’s intelligence agency SOVA, Rajko Kozmelj, refused to give the parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Commission access to the hiring practices, which was requested in order to check for possible abuse of the powers of PM Šarec.

The PM presumably intervened to secure a job in the agency to a female friend of his. This represents an unprecedented denial of oversight, which is enshrined in law, to a democratically elected institution. It is also a vicious attack on parliamentary democracy and system of democratic controls. The reasoning behind the denial probably lies in the attempt to further cover up the evidence of the role of PM Šarec in the employment of his close female friend.

Both, the public and opposition called for the immediate resignation of SOVA director Kozmelj and an extraordinary session of the Slovenian parliament. SOVA has been dodging allegations of nepotism and wrongdoings, including cover-ups for years. In its 2011 report to the Intelligence Oversight Commission, SOVA even withheld and covered-up crucial information and the scope of the NLB-Iran affair when the Slovenian state-owned bank (NLB) laundered 1 billion dollars for the Iranian regime.

  • Written by
  • Read: 313 times

Anastazije Martinčić: "I have no homeland. Not even plans. I'm definitely not coming back to Croatia."

A month ago, the author of this interview was contacted by Uruguayan journalist Santo y Seña (synonymous with "Principal", op. P.) Fernanda Kosak, who talked about "Uruguay on the path of narcotics". I was mostly asked about the biggest Balkan drug cartel, named after the Balkan Warrior campaign, where the main actors of this cartel were demolished and slaughtered. But not all of them. A summary of the show and a link to it will be posted on our website. Last Monday, however, we spoke with Anastasi Martinčić, who was met by reader’s years ago when he was imprisoned as one of the Balkan warriors at Libertad's Uruguayan prison, considered one of the worst prisons in the world. His statement that Slovenia does not have a mafia but a mafia has a country, today, unfortunately, seems true. Since last Thursday, Martinčić has been released again after ten years.

  • Written by
  • Read: 357 times

New European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance to the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes

The Platform welcomes the new European Parliament resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe, which was adopted on 19 September 2019 in Strasbourg. The resolution was supported by 535 votes in favour, 66 against, and 52 abstentions.

In the field of commemoration the European Parliament (EP) paid tribute to the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes and calls for a “common culture of remembrance” as a way of fostering Europeans’ resilience to modern threats to democracy. They recall that European integration has, from the start, been a response to the suffering inflicted by two world wars, and built as a model of peace and reconciliation founded on the values common to all member states. The European Union is therefore particularly responsible for safeguarding democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The EP also calls on the member states to commemorate 23rd August as the European Day of Remembrance for the victims of totalitarian regimes and to establish the International Day of Heroes of the Fight against Totalitarianism (25th May).

In the field of education, the EP calls on the member states to promote and to raise the younger generation’s awareness of these issues by including the history and analysis of the consequences of totalitarian regimes in the curricula and textbooks of all schools in the EU and stresses the importance of keeping memories of the past alive, because there can be no reconciliation without remembrance.

In the field of justice, the EP recalls that the Nazi and Communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime; the EP condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, Communist and other totalitarian regimes. The EP calls on all Member States of the EU to make a clear and principled assessment of the crimes and acts of aggression perpetrated by the totalitarian Communist regimes and the Nazi regime. And also expresses its deep respect for each victim of these totalitarian regimes and calls on all EU institutions and actors to do their utmost to ensure that horrific totalitarian crimes against humanity and systemic gross human rights violations are remembered and brought before courts of law, and to guarantee that such crimes will never be repeated.

The EP condemns the fact that extremist and xenophobic political forces in Europe are increasingly resorting to distortion of historical facts, and employ symbolism and rhetoric that echoes aspects of totalitarian propaganda, including racism, anti-Semitism and hatred towards sexual and other minorities.

It is the first time since 2009 that the EP has recognised the importance of the Platform of European Memory and Conscience and its activities and also calls for the provision of effective support for it.

"The Platform of European Memory and Conscience wishes to express our utmost appreciation for the adoption of the new resolution on the importance of European remembrance for the future and the huge support for it, which is a sign that the fundamental meaning of remembrance for Europe's present and future is widely understood. We would like to thank all MEPs who proposed and backed this important document. We hope that it will result in concrete EU Commission actions," says Łukasz Kamiński, President of the Platform.

  • Written by
  • Read: 589 times

Daniel Friberg: Ethnopluralism is rooted in the simple idea that every unique ethnicity has the right to govern itself, on territory which has historically belonged to it

Daniel Friberg is the Co-founder and CEO of the publishing company Arktos Media Ltd., author of "The Real Right Returns" and chairman of Swedish conservative think-tank. The interview was published in a print version of Demokracija magazine.

 

Could you please tell us when and under what circumstances did you first came into contact with the right wing ideas, and what were the main reasons that you decided to become active within the right wing and identitarian movements? Maybe you could also tell us which were some of the main philosophers and thinkers that influenced you the most in your activities and writings?

My political awakening came in my early teens, when I first came into contact with multiculturalism and realized that the media was lying and covering up the negative effects of immigration, and I wanted to find out why. I started doing my own research and read plenty of books, and realized they were lying to us about many other things as well. To fight this deceitful agenda of our elite, I decided to become politically active. I first joined the Sweden Democrats for a short while, but soon decided that party politics was not my cup of tea. Opinion-forming activities were much more appealing to me, and a few years later, in my late teens, I founded my first small publishing company, including a magazine dealing with topics such as immigration and media propaganda which I managed to distribute for free to all third-year high-school students in our two biggest cities. That was the start of my career in metapolitics.

I was mostly influenced by Swedish authors in the early years, but some of my earliest, most important influences outside of Sweden were Richard McCulloch, Guillaume Faye, Alain de Benoist and Pierre Krebs.

Can you tell us the story behind the establishment of the Arktos media and publishing house?

It all started with me and three other people from the think-tank ‘Motpol’ getting together in Aarhus, Denmark, in November 2009, for a meeting about starting up a new publishing company. I had previously been running a Swedish publishing house called ‘Nordic Publishing’ for seven years, but I, as well as my three colleagues from Denmark and Norway, felt it was time to do something bigger. During that weekend, Arktos was born. We came up with the name, the logotype, and the general direction we were about to take. After that, we got started on an aggressive investment strategy where we acquired the rights to the most important books by Guillaume Faye and Alain de Benoist right from the start, effectively monopolizing the most important New Right works shortly after founding the company.

You are also the founder of the Swedish right wing think tank Motpol. Could you tell us something more about its activities?

Motpol was founded in 2005 with the express purpose of introducing ideas and thinkers from the French New Right and the early Identitarian movement into the Scandinavian countries. Since 2005 we’ve published thousands of articles, organized a multitude of meetups and nine annual conferences in the popular ‘Identitarian Ideas’ series. The latest conference took place in Stockholm, February 2017, and featured nearly 400 guests and speakers from all over Europe and the US.

The so called »Alt-right« movement which appeared a few years back, has in fact grown out of the website altright.com. You were one of the founders of this website, and its regular contributor. Please tell us a few words about the altright.com, and how would you define the term »Alternative Right«? Also, please give us your opinion on the Alt-right movement?

Altright.com emerged from the general energy and excitement following watershed anti-globalist events like the Brexit vote and the Trump election, and provided a platform for incisive analysis by talented writers who, for their unconventional views, couldn’t write elsewhere. While a good idea, the project ultimately failed due to external circumstances, and I chose to leave the company as well as the editorial board for the site in spring last year.  

The ‘Alternative Right’, as its name suggests, provides a real political alternative to our failing, and in many cases pathetic, conventional right. The Alt-Right is difficult to define, because it has always included a lot of different currents. This has made it both innovative and difficult to pin down. Everyone involved, however, is fed up with degeneration in politics and culture, is concerned with the future of European and European-derived ethnicities, and is  opposed to the forces of globalism and one-worldism. Alt-Righters are willing to look critically on liberalism, the endless US- and Europe-led wars in the Middle East and parts of Africa, and the growth of international money power. They see the political Establishment as not only inefficient, but even in many cases malicious, and they are looking for new solutions to the problems that the Establishment has caused.

One of our books, A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders, is a collection of essays discussing the American Alt-Right in particular. The Alt-Right movement was a very important step in American politics. It altered the narrative in the United States and produced a kind of populism that would not have been possible without it. It even played a part, and maybe a decisive part, in electing Donald Trump to office. This led to the emergence in Europe of similar, though distinctly European, movements. The American Alt-Right has suffered setbacks and lost the momentum that set it going. But though the name is used less frequently than when Altright.com was founded, its influence is as real now as ever, and it could very well make a reappearance, perhaps under a different brand, in the 2020 American elections.

The Alt-Right has changed the worldview of many people in both America and Europe, and has opened up political possibilities which were not possible even five years ago. That is its great metapolitical achievement.

You are the author of the book »The Real Right Returns«.  The two of the many themes that you write about  in the book are the concepts of Ethnopluralism and Metapolitics.  It seems you strongly advocate these two concepts, which are also at the core of the identitarian idea. Could you please briefly explain those two concepts to our readers, and give as a short introduction to the other themes you write about in your book?

Ethnopluralism is rooted in the simple idea that every unique ethnicity has the right to govern itself, on territory which has historically belonged to it. This idea is accepted without argument for practically every ethnicity on the planet except for Western ethnicities; in Western countries, multiculturalism is the dominant paradigm. Multiculturalism holds that cultures and ethnicities can and should be freely intermixed in liberal societies, each somehow magically keeping to its distinct traditional ways and respecting the rights of every other to do the same. Ethnopluralism sees the absurdity in this. In liberal states, different ethnicities will of course always engage in identity politics, using politics to benefit their kind at the expense of everyone else. Vastly different ethnicities that are brought to live side by side either violently clash with each other on account of their irreconcilable differences, or else they homogenise and lose everything which is characteristic to them. The only way that ethnicities and cultures can be truly preserved is by maintaining the physical distances and the national boundaries that separate them. This is as true in the West as anywhere on Earth, and it is the core meaning of ethnopluralism – the true multiculturalism.

Metapolitics on the other hand refers to a kind of action aimed at changing the political tendencies of individuals, by changing the worldview of society as a whole. The strategy of metapolitics, as I outline in my book, originated with the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist who wrote a series of notebooks while in prison in Fascist Italy, in which he he concluded that communism had failed in Italy because it had occupied itself too much with politics and not enough with culture. This insight led to the development of the Frankfurt School and all the epochal changes which that School brought.

The strategies and the tools of metapolitics can and must be used by the Right as well, and this includes work on many different levels – everything from publishing the kinds of books that Arktos offers, to providing podcasts, articles and interviews like the present one, to having debates with your family and friends, to trolling on the internet. What is important is that everyone finds a way of joining the struggle, whether publicly or privately, to shift the present worldview.

My book also discusses the decline of the Left, the necessity of putting politics before economics, the importance of Europe’s unity on the geopolitical level, and the fundamental question of gender roles. This last is important because without large traditional families, Europe will lose the demographic race and will suffer the consequences in terms of more forced non-European immigration and the continually diminishing political weight of native European ethnicities. Also, men and women cannot reach their full potential if they refuse to attempt to do so as men and women, by embodying the specific virtues of their genders.

»The Real Right Returns« is one of the books which explains the concepts of the New Right to all the people new to these ideas. Which other books would you also recommend to the readers interesed to learn more about the New Right and the Identitarian thought?

We have published an excellent overview of the Right by my friend and colleague, Joakim Andersen, Rising from the Ruins: The Right of the 21st Century, which I highly recommend as an introduction to the various strands of the contemporary Right. For the New Right in particular, New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe by Michael O’Meara is an excellent place to begin, along with some of the works of the founders of the New Right themselves, such as Why We Fight by Guillaume Faye and the View from the Right trilogy by Alain de Benoist. The Identitarian movement and its tactics are summarised nicely in Generation Identity by Markus Willinger. For those who wish to deepen their knowledge of the New Right and related movements, I suggest the work of Julius Evola, Alexander Dugin, and other books by the above authors, many of which are available from our publishing house.

Could you describe the current political situation in Sweden to our readers? Are there any organisations or political parties that you cooperate with? What is your opinion about the conservative party Sweden Democrats?

It’s less than ideal, to put it mildly. We have, by international standards, a radically left-wing, feminist, pro-LGBT, pro-immigration government that prioritizes open-borders and virtue signaling at the expense of the future of Swedish people. Sweden has had by far the highest non-European immigration per capita in Europe for close to three decades, and this newly imported Lumpenproletariat is slowly supplanting the Swedish voters, making it more difficult for the Swedish people to assert their political interests with every passing year.

Since I and the projects I’m involved in are metapolitical in nature – which means they would be weakened by overt affiliations with political parties – we don’t have any ongoing cooperation.

The Sweden Democrats, being socially conservative civic nationalists, are the only relatively sane party in the Swedish parliament, and they are growing with every election. They are currently the second biggest party in the polls, taking around 20% of the votes.

The hegemony of the liberal left in the mainstream media and in the public life in general, and the enforcement of political correctness, which is currently present in most of European countries, seems to be especially strong in Sweden. Could you tell us how does this reflect on Swedish society? How strong is the censorship and have you and Arktos media ever had any problems with the state due to the so called »hate speech« laws?

Sweden has a small population of just over ten million people living on land with harsh terrain and hard winters. To survive here, the Swedes became very closely knit, very trusting, well-organised, and obedient to rules and laws. But these virtues have been used against them by our hostile politicians to import masses of foreigners and to censor dissident opinions. More than a fifth of the population in Sweden is foreign, and most of these foreigners come from outside the European Union. Sweden has suffered from exploding crime rates and the total disruption of its urban life especially.

However, everything which has led the Swedes to be one of the worst-abused of all European peoples in the migrant crisis could become enormously beneficial to them. When the Swedes awaken to the truth of their situation, their capacity to work together, to forge strong communities, and to follow a course of action to the very end will help them reclaim their country and their national and ethnic destiny. If anyone is interested in knowing more about the Swedish situation, and that of Western Europe more generally, The Ideology of Failure: How Europe Bought Into Ideas That Will Weaken and Destroy It by Stephen Pax Leonard is a great resource.

Arktos has of course been targeted by the general censorship. Several major Swedish bookstores were among the first to take our titles off their shelves, and they have been followed by bookstores in a few other countries. We have had one title – A Fair Hearing – banned from Amazon.com without any real justification, and the works of Alexander Dugin have also been suppressed due to American sanctions against Russia. We are also a continual target for various groups who have decided that everyone who doesn’t think like them should be censored. These groups are usually nothing better than globalist lapdogs, and so we welcome their hostility; it means we’re doing our job.

The millitant left wing group Antifa seems to be quite strong in Sweden, even attacking homes and property of patriots. Can you tell us something about this attacks, and have you, or anyone from Arktos, ever faced any threats from them? Tell us also how does the mainstream media portraits these attacks in the news and were you ever harrassed by the left wing journalists?

Antifa in Sweden barely exists, and they are more of a joke than any serious threat to anything. Arktos has never had any problems with the Swedish Antifa. As for left-wing journalists, these are still a problem, in the sense that they routinely publish lies and complete fabrications about right-wing, nationalist people, including myself, and try their best to incite censorship and violence against us.

We will see how long they last. With the dwindling readerships of the fake news media platforms and well-deserved mass-layoffs of leftist journalists working for the older generation of newspapers and TV channels, I doubt it will be for much longer. Alternative media outlets will eventually push these people out. The only thing that could possibly save them is draconian censorship of the Internet, which I frankly think will be impossible.

Mass migration has been on the rise in Sweden for quite some time now, resulting in higher crime rates, rapes and riots. Could you tell us what is the current situation regarding non european migrants and the troubles they cause ? Also tell us what do you believe are the real reasons  hiding behind this lunatic open borders policy of EU leaders, and what would be the most efficient solution to this problem?

You are certainly right, and the riots, for instance, are visible proof of the changes in Swedish society over the past few decades. It would once have been impossible to imagine open battles in Swedish streets, with stone-throwing, car fires and attacks on the police; now, it is not unusual to see Swedish cities go up in flames because this or that ‘migrant community’ isn’t happy with the way things are going. The rape statistics in particular are shocking; rape has risen in Sweden 24% in the past decade. In rape assault cases, 85% of the perpetrators are non-European. Keep in mind that these are official statistics in a country whose politicians and media almost neurotically excuse immigrants for their misbehaviour, so the real numbers are certainly higher.

But some things can’t be hidden: Sweden is now the hand-grenade-attack capital of Europe, and one of the rape capitals of the entire world. Back when it was almost exclusively ethnically Swedish, with most of its immigrants coming from other parts of Europe, it was one of the safest countries in the world. It doesn’t take sophisticated analysis to see what’s causing the problems here.

Open-borders policies are sought for a lot of reasons. Part of it originates in a real concern: to be politically competitive on the global scale, Europe needs a strong economy and a flourishing population. But rather than encouraging Europeans to have more children, as I do in my book, Europeans are actively encouraged not to have children from frankly absurd environmental and economic pretexts. So while the demographic issue is a real problem, it is only part of the reason for open-border policies.

A larger factor here is the greed of cosmopolitan globalists, who understand how much they’ll profit if they can transform as much of the world as possible into a homogeneous mass of consumer/laborers. They do whatever they can to open European borders, to destroy our native European ethnicities and to eradicate all sense of rootedness or belonging. This is why I dedicate sections of my book to the relation between politics and economics and family-building; Europe can’t survive in the current geopolitical reality unless it unites, begins to grow its population through the promotion of healthy European families, and forcibly limits the power of the supranational elites, who now do whatever they please across the globe with almost total impunity.

As far as immigration goes, before anything, our borders must be secured. We often hear the press and our politicians claiming that nothing can be done to stop immigration, but we have seen in countries like Hungary and Italy, and also in your own Slovenia, that secure-border policies are not only possible but potentially highly effective. If more of the major non-EU immigration destinations in Europe began to protect their borders, the word would quickly spread to Africa and the Middle East, and that would already be a powerful deterrent to future immigration into Europe. This is why metapolitics is so important.

What would you say the future hold for Arktos media? And what do you believe awaits Sweden and the rest of Europe in the coming years?

As the nightmarish consequences of the globalist worldview become clearer, more and more people will seek real alternatives. Arktos is the premier publishing house for books along these lines, so I believe that our future is bright. If things continue to go badly in the West – as I obviously hope they do not – we will remain one of the few publishing houses brave enough to honestly and openly discuss the real problems of our countries, and if things finally turn around and the West enjoys a new renaissance, we will be among the avant-garde promoting new visions for a renovated society. One way or another, Arktos’ future is tied to the future of Europe itself, and that is as it should be.

There could be dark days in store. There will almost certainly be a rise in violence in many parts of Europe (and in the US and other Western countries) before things can turn around again, and this might even lead to the break-up of countries or to civil war, as Guillaume Faye predicts in his most recent book, Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War.

Right now the biggest question is what country will flare up first. Sweden is one candidate, given its extremely high percentage of non-European immigrants and Muslims. Malmö, for instance, which is full of so-called ‘no-go zones’, is about one-third first-generation immigrants, and this statistic doesn’t even count immigrant children born in Sweden. There are 150 languages spoken in Malmö alone. We are talking about a time bomb. Paris, London, several major Swedish and German cities and many places in the US have all shown similar signs of strain. But whatever city – or country – goes first, it will awaken the peoples of the West to the fact that something must be done.

I am confident that the fighting spirit of our peoples will reawaken. We have lived comfortably for a long time now, but harder times are coming. When things get tough, I believe we will see the old virtue of the European-descended peoples arise again. And once that day comes, there is no one who can predict what we might achieve.

Thank you very much for this interview! Do you have any last messages for our readers and for the Slovenian nation?

It’s been my pleasure! Thanks to you and to your audience for the opportunity.

Slovenia occupies an important position at the southern border of Central and Western Europe. You showed enormous courage during the migrant crisis when you put up a wall at your border to control the so-called ‘Balkan Route’. That put pressure on other countries in front of Slovenia in the lines, like Croatia and Greece, to do the same. You were demonized by much of the mainstream media when that happened, and it was even claimed that you were threatening the future of the European Union. But all of those who really love Europe understood. The latest news is that you are planning to continue with the perimeter fence; all true Europeans will applaud you for your pro-European efforts along these lines.

Unfortunately, we can be almost certain that there will be other migrant crises from the Middle East and Africa, which will certainly flood into Southern and Eastern Europe and put our borders and our will once more to the test. I’m sure the Slovenian people will be up to the task when the time comes.

....................................

The response of the Slovenian patriot, president of the largest opposition SDS party and former Prime Minister of Slovenia Mr. Janez Janša: "Congratulations Mr. Donald Trump for one of the best speeches in the history of the UN." (HERE)

(FULL TRANSCRIPT) Mr. Donald Trump: The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique

Full Transcript: USA President Donald Trump Addresses the 74th Session of the United Nations - September 24, 2019

"Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished delegates, ambassadors and world leaders, seven decades of history have passed through this hall in all of their richness and drama. Where I stand, the world has heard from presidents and premiers at the height of the Cold War. We have seen the foundation of nations. We have seen the ringleaders of revolution.

We have beheld saints who inspired us with hope, rebels who stirred us with passion and heroes who emboldened us with courage all here to share plans, proposals, visions and ideas on the world's biggest stage. Like those who met us before, our time is one of great contests, high stakes and clear choices.

The essential divide that runs all around the world and throughout history is once again, thrown into stark relief. It is the divide between those whose thirst for control deludes them into thinking they are destined to rule over others and those people and nations who want only to rule themselves. I have the immense privilege of addressing you today as the elected leader of a nation that prizes liberty, independence and self-government above all.

The United States, after having spent over $2.5 trillion since my election, to completely rebuild our great military, is also, by far, the world's most powerful nation. Hopefully it will never have to use this power. Americans know that in a world where others seek conquest and domination, our nation must be strong in wealth, in might and in spirit.

That is why the United States vigorously defends the traditions and customs that have made us who we are. Like my beloved country, each nation represented in this hall has a cherished history, culture and heritage that is worth defending and celebrating, and which gives us our singular potential and strength.

The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. Looking around and all over, this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see. If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation.

Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

It is why we in the United States have embarked on an exciting program of national renewal. And everything we do, we are focused on empowering the dreams and aspirations of our citizens. Thanks to our pro-growth economic policies, our domestic unemployment rate reached its lowest level in over half a century.

Fueled by massive tax cuts and regulations cuts, jobs are being produced at a historic rate. 6 million Americans have been added to the employment rolls in under three years. Last month, African-American, Hispanic-American and Asian-American unemployment reached their lowest rates ever recorded. We are marshaling our nation's vast energy abundance and the United States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world.

Wages are rising. Incomes are soaring. And 2.5 million Americans have been lifted out of poverty in less than three years. As we rebuild the unrivaled might by the American military, we are also revitalizing our alliances by making it very clear that all of our partners are expected to pay their fair share of the tremendous defense burden, which the United States has borne in the past.

At the center of our vision for national renewal is an ambitious campaign to reform international trade. For decades, the international trading system has been easily exploited by nations acting in very bad faith, as jobs were outsourced, a small handful grew wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In America, the result was 4.2 million lost manufacturing jobs and $15 trillion in trade deficits over the last quarter-century.

The United States is now taking that decisive action to end this grave economic injustice. Our goal is simple. We want balanced trade that is both fair and reciprocal. We have worked closely with our partners in Mexico and Canada to replace NAFTA with the brand new and hopefully bipartisan U.S./Mexico/Canada Agreement.

Tomorrow, I will join Prime Minister Abe of Japan to continue our progress and finalizing a terrific new trade deal. As the United Kingdom makes preparations to exit the European Union, I have made clear that we stand ready to complete an exceptional, new trade agreement with the U.K. that will bring tremendous benefits to both of our countries.

We are working closely with Prime Minister Boris Johnson on a magnificent new trade deal. The most important difference in America's new approach on trade concerns our relationship with China. In 2001, China was admitted to the World Trade Organization. Our leaders then argued that this decision would compel China to liberalize its economy and strengthen protections to provide things that were unacceptable to us and for private property and for the rule of law.

Two decades later, this theory has been tested and proven completely wrong. Not only has China declined to adopt promised reforms, it has embraced an economic model dependent on massive market barriers, heavy state subsidies, currency manipulation, product dumping, forced technology transfers and the theft of intellectual property, and also trade secrets on a grand scale.

This is just one example. I recently met the CEO of a terrific American company, Micron Technology, at the White House. Micron produces memory chips used in countless electronics. To advance the Chinese government's five-year economic plan, a company owned by the Chinese state allegedly stole Micron's designs, valued it up to $8.7 billion.

Soon, the Chinese company obtains patents or nearly an identical product and Micron was banned from selling its own goods in China. But we are seeking justice. The United States lost 60,000 factories after China entered the WTO. This is happening to other countries all over the globe. The World Trade Organization needs drastic change.

The second-largest economy in the world should not be permitted to declare itself a developing country in order to game the system at others' expense. For years, these abuses were tolerated, ignored or even encouraged. Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests.

But as far as America is concerned, those days are over. To confront these unfair practices, I placed massive tariffs on more than $500 billion worth of Chinese-made goods. Already, as a result of these tariffs, supply chains are relocating back to America and to other nations and billions of dollars are being paid to our treasury.

The American people are absolutely committed to restoring balance to our relationship with China. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will be beneficial for both countries. But as I have made very clear, I will not accept a bad deal for the American people. As we endeavor to stabilize our relationship, we are also carefully monitoring the situation in Hong Kong.

The world fully expects that the Chinese government will honor its binding treaty made with the British and registered with the United Nation in which commits China to protect Hong Kong's freedom, legal system and democratic ways of life. How China chooses to handle the situation will say a great deal about its role in the world and the future.

We are all counting on President Xi as a great leader. The United States does not seek conflict with any other nation. We desire peace, cooperation and mutual gain with all. But I will never fail to defend America's interests. One of the greatest security threats facing peace-loving nations today is the repressive regime in Iran.

The regime's record of death and destruction is well-known to us all. Not only is Iran the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism but Iran's leaders are fueling the tragic wars in Syria and Yemen. At the same time, the regime is squandering the nation's wealth and future in a fanatical quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

We must never allow this to happen. To stop Iran's path to nuclear weapons and missiles, I withdrew the United States from the terrible Iran nuclear deal, which has very little time remaining, did not allow inspection of important sites and did not cover ballistic missiles. Following our withdrawal, we have implemented severe economic sanctions on the country.

Hoping to free itself from sanctions, the regime has escalated its violent and unprovoked aggression. In response to Iran's recent attack on Saudi Arabia oil facilities, we just imposed the highest level of sanctions on Iran's Central Bank and Sovereign Wealth Fund. All nations have a duty to act. No responsible government should subsidize Iran's bloodlust.

As long as Iran's menacing behavior continues, sanctions will not be lifted. They will be tightened. Iran's leader will have turned a proud nation into just another cautionary tale of what happens when a ruling class abandons its people and embarks on a crusade for personal power and riches. For 40 years, the world has listened to Iran's rulers, as they lash out at everyone else for the problems they alone have created.

They conduct ritual chants of death to America and traffic in monstrous anti-Semitism. Last year, the country's supreme leader stated Israel is a malignant, cancerous tumor that has to be removed and eradicated. It is possible and it will happen. America will never tolerate such anti-Semitic hate. Fanatics have long used hatred of Israel to distract from their own failures.

Thankfully, there is a growing recognition in the wider Middle East that the countries of the region share common interests in battling extremism and unleashing economic opportunity. That is why it's important to have full normalized relations between Israel and its neighbors. Only a relationship built on common interest, mutual respect and religious tolerance can forge a better future.

Iran's citizens deserve a government that cares about reducing poverty, ending corruption and increasing jobs, not stealing their money, to fund a massacre abroad and at home. After four decades of failure, it is time for Iran's leaders to step forward and to stop threatening other countries and focus on building up their own country.

It is time for Iran's leaders to finally put the Iranian people first. America is ready to embrace friendship with all who genuinely seek peace and respect. Many of America's closest friends today were once our greatest foes. The United States has never believed in permanent enemies. We want partners, not adversaries.

America knows that while anyone can make war only the most courageous can choose peace. For this same reason, we have pursued bold diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula. I have told Kim Jong-un what I truly believe. That like Iran, his country is full of tremendous untapped potential. But that to realize that promise North Korea must denuclearize.

Around the world, our message is clear. America's goal is lasting. America's goal is harmony. And America's goal is not to go with these endless wars. Wars that never end. With that goal in mind, my administration is also pursuing the hope of a brighter future in Afghanistan. Unfortunately the Taliban has chosen to continue their savage attacks.

We will continue to work with our coalition of Afghan partners to stamp out terrorism and we will never stop working to make peace a reality. Here in the Western hemisphere, we are joining with our partners to ensure stability and opportunity all across the region. In that mission, one of our most critical challenges is illegal immigration which undermines prosperity, rips apart societies and empowers ruthless criminal cartels.

Mass illegal migration is unfair, unsafe and unsustainable for everyone involved. The sending countries and the depleted countries and they become depleted very fast. But their youth is not taken care of and human capital goes to waste. The receiving countries are overburdened with more migrants than they can responsibly accept.

And the migrants themselves are exploited, assaulted and abused by vicious coyotes. Nearly one third of women who make the journey north to our border are sexually assaulted along the way. Yet here in the United States and around the world, there is a growing cottage industry of radical activists and nongovernmental organizations that promote human smuggling.

These groups encourage illegal migration and demand the erasure of national borders. Today I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice. Your policies are not just. Your policies are cruel and evil. You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women and children.

You put your own false sense of virtue before the lives, wellbeing and countless innocent people. When you undermine border security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity. Many of the countries here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration. Each of you has the absolute right to protect your borders.

And so, of course, does our country. Today we must resolve to work together to end human smuggling and human trafficking and put these criminal networks out of business for good. To our country, I can tell you sincerely we are working closely with our friends in the region including Mexico, Canada, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama to uphold the integrity of borders and ensure safety and prosperity for our people.

I would like to thank President Lopez Obrador of Mexico for the great cooperation we are receiving. And for right now putting 27,000 troops on our southern border. Mexico is showing us great respect and I respect them in return. The U.S., we have taken very unprecedented action to stop the flow of illegal immigration.

To anyone conducting crossings of our border illegally, please hear these words. Do not pay the smugglers. Do not pay the coyotes. Do not put yourself in danger. Do not put your children in danger. Because if you make it here, you will not be allowed in. You will be promptly returned home. You will not be released into our country.

As long as I am President of the United States, we will enforce our laws and protect our borders. For all of the countries of the Western hemisphere, our goal is to help people invest in the bright futures of their own nation. Our region is full of such incredible promise, dreams waiting to be built and national destinies for all.

And they are waiting, also, to be pursued. Throughout the hemisphere there are millions of hard working patriotic young people eager to build, innovate and achieve but these nations cannot reach their potential if a generation of youth abandon their homes in search of a life elsewhere. We want every nation in our region to flourish and its people to thrive in freedom and peace.

And that vision we are also committed to supporting those people in the Western hemisphere who live under brutal oppression such as those in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. According to a recent report from the U.N. Human Rights Council, women in Venezuela stand in line for ten hours a day waiting for food.

Over 15,000 people have been detained as political prisoners. Modern-day death squads are carrying out thousands of extra judicial killings. The dictator Maduro is a Cuban puppet protected by Cuban bodyguards hiding from his own people while Cuba plunders Venezuela's oil wealth to sustain its own corrupt communist rule.

Since I last spoke in this hall, the United States and our partners have built a historic coalition of 55 countries that recognize the legitimate government of Venezuela. To the Venezuelans, trapped in this nightmare, please know that all of America is united behind you. The United States has vast quantities of humanitarian aid ready and waiting to be delivered.

We're watching the Venezuelan situation very closely. We await the day when democracy will be restored, when Venezuela will be free and when liberty will prevail throughout this hemisphere. One of the most serious challenges our countries face is the specter of socialism. It's the wrecker of nations and destroyer of societies.

Events in Venezuela remind us all that socialism and communism are not about justice, they are not about equality. They are not about lifting up the poor. And they are certainly not about good of the nation. Socialism and communism are about one thing only. Power for the ruling class. Today I repeat a message for the world that I have delivered at home.

America will never be a socialist country. In the last century, socialism and communism killed 100 million people. Sadly, as we see in Venezuela, the death toll continues in this country. These totalitarian ideologies combined with modern technology have the power to excise new and disturbing forms of suppression and domination.

For this reason, the United States is taking steps to better screen foreign technology and investments and to protect our data and our security. We urge every nation present to do the same. Freedom and democracy must be constantly guarded and protected both abroad and from within. We must always be skeptical of those who want conformity and control.

Even in free nations, we see alarming signs and new challenges to liberty. A small number of social media platforms are acquiring immense power over what we can see and over what we are allowed to say. A permanent political class is openly disdainful, dismissive and defiant of the will of the people. A faceless bureaucracy operates in secret and weakens democratic rule.

Media and academic institutions push flat-out assaults on our histories, traditions and values. In the United States, my administration has made clear to social media companies that we will uphold the right of free speech. A free society cannot allow social media giants to silence the voices of the people.

And a free people must never, ever be enlisted in the cause of silencing, coercing, canceling or blacklisting their own neighbors. As we defend American values, we affirm the right of all people to live in dignity. For this reason, my administration is working with other nations to stop criminalizing of homosexuality and we stand in solidarity with LGBTQ people who live in countries that punish, jail or execute individuals based upon sexual orientation.

We are also championing the role of women in our societies. Nations that empower women are much wealthier, safer and much more politically stable. It is, therefore, vital not only to a nation's prosperity but also is vital to its national security to pursue women's economic development. Guided by these principles, my administration launched the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiatives.

The WGDP is the first-ever government wide approach to women's economic empowerment working to ensure that women all over the planet have the legal right to own and inherit property, work in the same industries as men, travel freely and access credit and institutions. Yesterday I was also pleased to host leaders for a discussion about an ironclad American commitment protecting religious leaders and also, protecting religious freedom.

This fundamental right is under growing threat around the world. Hard to believe, but 80 percent of the world's population lives in countries where religious liberty is in significant danger or even completely outlawed. Americans will never fire or tire in our effort to defend and promote freedom of worship and religion.

We want and support religious liberty for all. Americans will also never tire of defending innocent life. We are aware that many United Nations projects have attempted to assert a global right to taxpayer funded abortion on demand right up until the moment of delivery. Global bureaucrats have absolutely no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.

Like many nations here today, we in America believe that every child born and unborn is a sacred gift from God. There is no circumstance under which the United States will allow international entities to trample on the rights of our citizens, including the right to self-defense. That is why this year I announced that we will never ratify the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty which would threaten the liberties of law-abiding American citizens.

The United States will always uphold our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We will always uphold our Second Amendment. The core rights and values America defends today were inscribed in America's founding documents. Our nation's founders understood that there will always be those who believe they are entitled to wield power and control over others.

Tyranny advances under many names and many theories but it always comes down to the desire for domination. It protects not the interests of many but the privilege of few. Our founders gave us a system designed to restrain this dangerous impulse. They chose to entrust American power to those most invested in the fate of our nation, a proud and fiercely independent people.

The true good of the nation can only be pursued by those who love it. By citizen who is are rooted in its history, who are nourished by its culture, committed to its values, attached to its people and who know that its future is theirs to build or theirs to lose. Patriots see a nation and its destiny in ways no one else can.

Liberty is only preserved. Sovereignty is only secured. Democracy is only sustained. Greatness is only realized by the will and devotion of patriots. In this spirit is found the strength to resist oppression. The inspiration to forge legacy. The goodwill to seek friendship and the bravery to reach for peace.

Love of our nations makes the world better for all nations. So to all the leaders here today, join us in the most fulfilling mission a person could have. The most profound contribution anyone can make. Lift up your nations. Cherish your culture. Honor your histories. Treasure your citizens. Make your countries strong and prosperous and righteous.

Honor the dignity of your people and nothing will be outside of our reach. When our nations are greater, the future will be brighter. Our people will be happier. And our partnerships will be stronger. With God's help together we will cast off the enemies of liberty and overcome the oppressors of dignity.

We will set new standards of living and reach new heights of human achievement. We will rediscover old truths, unravel old mysteries and make thrilling new breakthroughs. And we will find more beautiful friendship and more harmony among nations than ever before. My fellow leaders, the path to peace and progress and freedom and justice and a better world for all humanity begins at home.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the nations of the world. And God bless America. Thank you very much."

............................

The response of the Slovenian patriot, president of the largest opposition SDS party and former Prime Minister of Slovenia Mr. Janez Janša: "Congratulations Mr. Donald Trump for one of the best speeches in the history of the UN." (HERE)

CIA: Tito and Information Bureau (Cominform) dispute

“Tito needed Soviet help against General Draza Mihailovic and their help at a peace conference. In 1944, however, Sretan Zujovic, now in prison, supported the Soviets more fervently than he supported Tito,” says in the CIA document published on March 31, 1949.

“Cominform” or "informbiro" is the shorter name for the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties (1947-1955), a kind of connecting organization of Communist parties and later Communist countries in Europe. It was established with the aim of resolving the mutual issues of the Communist parties, acting unanimously in the world on behalf of communism, and informing the public about the state of the Communist parties, especially in matters of principle. The organization was under the direct leadership of Russian Bolshevik revolutionary Joseph Stalin.

The dispute between Tito and the informbureau

“Demokracija” editorial staff has obtained a document from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) entitled A Further Look of a Ranked Yugoslav Official on Tito's Foreign and Domestic Policy and the Yugoslav-Informbureau Dispute. The information was obtained by the source in March 1949 and the document was published on March 31, 1949. The nine-point source describes the dispute between Tito and the informbureau, the role of Yugoslavia in the subsequent (cold) war, Soviet policy and the replacement of personnel in the Soviet government. Tito's dispute with the informbureau describes the source on four points:

“1. Tito's disputes with the informbureau date back to 1944 after the liberation of Belgrade. Even at that time, Tito was too independent and too important to please the Russians, but they could not take action against him during the war. Tito needed Soviet help against General Draza Mihailovic and their help at a peace conference. As early as 1944, Sretan Zujovic, now in prison, supported the Soviets more fervently than he supported Tito. When a breakthrough with informbureau came to light in 1948, the Yugoslav Communist Party and the Yugoslav Army accepted it with regret, as Soviet military propaganda deeply influenced Yugoslav opinion. Non-communist sections of the population were disappointed and even isolated by the behaviour of the Red Army and USSR representatives in Yugoslavia. Finally, the country's economic recovery has stalled due to the relentless exploitation of all Yugoslav resources for the benefit of the Soviet Union and other satellites. As a result, the military and most of the Yugoslav Communist Party were forced to support the break with the informbureau, albeit with regret and hope that Tito could find a viable solution to the conflict.”

Tito doesn't have to "go to Kanoso"

The CIA source further notes that Tito does not need to acknowledge subordination to the Soviet Union. Or as the document says:

“2. Now Tito does not have to "go to Kanoso." Nor does he need to declare a definitive anti-Soviet policy. Even though Tito has no way of finding a friendly solution to the problems that Yugoslavia has with the informbureau, it must continue to mislead the party and army into believing that it is fundamentally pro-Soviet and will sooner or later resolve the dispute. After years of USSR-favoured propaganda and an attack on the West, Tito cannot make a complete turnaround. This is why Yugoslavia is moving closer to Western democracies, even though its economy is difficult and fraught with political risks. Tito does not enjoy this situation but can do nothing about it.”

Rankovic is a dangerous individual

The CIA source then notes the Party's relations with Tito and the Soviet Union:

“3. On the other hand, the leading officials of the party and the army know that their fate depends on Tito's ability to solve their problems. Tito must constantly think about pro-Russian associates that he cannot get rid of. Alexander Rankovic, for example, is a dangerous individual; Udba is his personal creation and the servants of Udba obey him more than Tito. Individuals such as Rankovic, Kardelj, Kidric, Bebler and Djilas will never be persuaded to completely turn their back on the USSR. However, since they themselves are doomed to fall if Tito falls, they support him all the time, nevertheless being careful not to approach Tito too close to the West, as this would mean their fall without an opportunity to escape to the Russians. Such a illogical situation cannot last forever,” the CIA source writes and continues:

“4. The current Soviet attitude in the Yugoslav-Austrian dispute over Carinthia is designed to show the people of Yugoslavia that the USSR is not an enemy of their country, but merely opposes dictator Tito and his supporters. By this time, the Russians are hoping to overthrow Tito and his gang and regain control of Yugoslavia. When they see that this cannot be done, they will release the Pan-Slavic mask and attempt to destroy only Yugoslavia, using the plan from year 1934 to destroy the Yugoslav state.”

The role of Yugoslavia in the Cold War

We also learn from the CIA document about the role of Yugoslavia in the coming Cold War.

“5. Yugoslavia cannot remain neutral in the coming conflict. If Tito is still in power at the outbreak of war, he will strive to maintain Yugoslav neutrality for at least some time. The USSR, however, would not respect Yugoslav neutrality; The Russians would immediately invade Yugoslavia to remove Tito and his supporters, establish a regime directed at the Soviets, and make the Soviet military machine available to the nation. If Tito, on the other hand, were to disappear before the outbreak of the war, there is no doubt that Yugoslavia will once again become a Soviet satellite and find itself at the forefront of the Soviet army,” a CIA source wrote in March 1949.

The Soviets dream of the dictatorship of the proletariat

And how did the CIA source perceive Soviet policy?

“6. Western democracies do not yet understand the essence of communism and the goals and tactics of the USSR. Neither Western democracies nor various emigrants were able to organize reliable, logical and effective propaganda against the real forces of Communism, while at the same time exploiting the weaknesses of the communist satellite regimes. The Soviets constantly dream of the world revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is well known that communism cannot be imposed on other nations by peaceful means and communist leaders have no choice but to use fraud, lies, terrorism, corruption and in the end, brute force.

Moscow therefore developed an unparalleled military organization and an unparalleled imperialism policy aimed at subjugating neighbouring nations, one after another; other countries in Europe and Asia will be the next target. Africa and South America will go their own way. Strong communist fifth column can be found everywhere, and non-communist personalities in high positions have been corrupted by Soviet agents. The Communists penetrated deep into North America. Henry Wallace, for example, represents America's biggest shame and the lowest level of politics. (The name of the source is blacked out.) he could not understand why democracies did not use an effective method against the Communists,” the CIA source wonders in this document.

The dangers of communism

A CIA source also senses the great danger of Soviet communism spreading to the West:

“7. In the war between Western democracies and the USSR, Europe could soon be completely occupied by Soviet and satellite forces. When that happens, the Soviet Union in Europe and Asia would have unlimited territory with huge resources and a huge workforce with high industrial efficiency. With such a base organized by terrorism and typical communist methods, the Soviets can resist any outside attack or organize and launch an air and submarine offensive," a CIA source warns.

Replacing Vyshinsky with Molotov

Point 8 in the document the CIA source subtitles Recent Staff Changes in the Soviet Government:

“8. Replacing Vyshinsky with Molotov means changing voices, but not politics itself. There is no possibility that Vyshinsky could change Yugoslavia's politics in any way. Be it Vyshinsky or Molotov, the one who yells and commands, their activities, posture and even their behaviour will be prescribed by the Politburo. The character or thinking of the person occupying any position there does not matter; he's just a record player. This fact makes a major difference between Soviet officials and diplomats and those from the West who still maintain a certain freedom of action and personal posture," the CIA source notes, among other things and also reports to Harry S. Truman, the 33rd President of the United States.

Thousands of people found themselves in prison camps

It should be recalled that in Tito's Yugoslavia, in the so-called psychological war, it began to deal with followers and imaginary followers of the resolution of the informbureau. As a result, tens of thousands of party members were expelled, and thousands of people found themselves in prison camps on the Naked Island, St. Gregory and beyond. In the years 1949-1956, the Yugoslav authorities’ imprisoned more than 13.000 political opponents on the Naked Island because of their alleged support for the Soviet Union and its leader Stalin. About 550 of them were Slovenes. More than 400 political prisoners died on the island, mostly due to illness and famine, and after 1956 other prisoners from the former Yugoslavia were imprisoned on the island. Of those arrested 21.818 were NOB participants, 9.234 professors, teachers, doctors, intellectuals, 5.081 workers and farmers, 4.008 students and students. The jailers were subjected to torture and forced labour in the quarry regardless of weather conditions. In summer at high temperatures and in winter in cold wind. The prisoners were regularly beaten and otherwise abused by the guards. Products from Naked Island were in fact intended for export. Italian ships drove them across the sea, and the earnings went to the operation of the Yugoslav Udba abroad and the financing of the Trieste Credit Bank. Investigators and seekers of political opponents were rewarded by the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. In 1953, according to some, 36 were declared national heroes; some became ambassadors to the Soviet Union, the United States, China, the United Nations, Canada and India. Naked Island Concentration Camp was closed in the mid-1980s. Famous Slovenians who landed at the Naked Island prison camp include Andrej Aplenc, Igo Sajovic, Franc Cukjati, Virgil Gomizel, Vladimir Bobinac, Dragotin Gustincic, Cene Logar, Bozo Kobe and many others.

.................................

Support The Demokracija magazine! Let´s make The Demokracija magazine possible! (HERE)

We have readers around the world, but we need your support.

Demokracija magazine and website www.demokracija.si are under attack of leftist government and left-wing activists. Wherever they can, they harass us. We need your support to be able to deliver you quality, investigative journalism. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our future.

You can donate your charitable contribution to our bank account number: SI56 0430 2000 2879 817, which is open at NKBM (with reference: SI00 1996 and attributed “for Demokracija”) or donate online below.

For transfers from abroad in addition to the transaction account, enter the SWIFT code: KBMASI2X

Thank you for your donation!

Erika Dvorzak: What the world is looking at now is nothing but an environmental narrative, used as an instrument of geopolitical manipulation

We talked with Erika Dvorzak about preserving primeval forests in the Amazon and living in Brazil. According to her, there is little knowledge of Brazil's environmental issues in the world, and worldwide media coverage of the Amazon fires is merely manipulation for geopolitical purposes.

What is the problem with fires on Amazon? What's really going on?

Fire in the Amazon - due to criminal acts or natural causes - is nothing new for us Brazilians. There are fires every year; you can check the data on the website of the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research. The question is why this is only now becoming international news. This happened as soon as our president, Jair Bolsonaro, who has only been in power for 8 months, stopped transferring the Amazon Fund to international NGOs that were supposed to work to preserve the forest because they had not shown satisfactory results or because it was impossible to track what they were doing with that money.

The mainstream media was overblown and a collective hysteria arose, triggered by a lot of old and pointless photographs. It was shocking to see pictures of giraffes, koalas and lions as if this type of animal was typical of Amazon. A whole lot of nonsense! There were fires, but the government took security measures to contain them and international aid was also adopted. The situation is already under control. The fires in Bolivia are much worse, but this has not become news.

What really is behind the fire reports?

What the world is looking at now is nothing but an environmental narrative used as an instrument of manipulation for geopolitical purposes. Scientism is used to legitimize the international geopolitical agenda, which in this case is the control of energy sources. We hear all kinds of absurdities, such as the fact that the Amazon forests are the lungs of the world, that Amazonia produces 20 percent of the world's oxygen, and so on. The Amazon represents only 1 percent of the size of the planet. How is it that it produces 20 percent oxygen? We Brazilians know that this speech is only intended to internationalize our territory.

The problem is that now it is not about the environment or the climate, but about Brazilian national sovereignty. Because of our natural resources, Brazilian territory has always been attractive. There are many metals in our underground that no other country has. The largest uranium reserves in the world are in Roraima, the territory of the Yanomami tribe. This is well known by Germans, Chinese, Norwegians and many others. What is really a problem is the number of international NGOs that delineate the territories of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon and illegally exploit our natural resources.

So it is all about an international appetite for energy resources…

The previous government continued to sell Amazonian territory to foreigners. We don't even know what the situation really is. There are really a lot of NGOs in the Amazon area - more than 100.000 are being talked about. Comparing how many are in the northeast of the country, where the desert is and people are the poorest, we can see that the difference is disproportionate. There are only 900.000 indigenous peoples. This is not even 0.5 percent of Brazil's total population of 210 million people. How is it that 13 percent, and this number is still growing, of our territory reserved for them? And most importantly, why aren't they even allowed exploiting their territory? Our previous government, under pressure from NGOs, introduced various barriers to the development of these regions, on the pretext of protecting them. To be fair, our indigenous people should be the richest people in the country, but in fact many are starving. It is very clear to us that this is national sovereignty and the current government is doing everything to preserve what is ours. I have noticed on the internet that many people think that these fires are behind the interests of capital and that we are affecting global warming.

But do they know what the world is really about when it comes to protecting primeval forests in Brazil?

I see that the world knows very little about our environmental issues. Brazil is the most successful country in the world in preserving forests within its borders. More than 60 percent of our territory, 8.516.000 km2, is covered by native vegetation. The Brazilian Forestry Code is one of the strictest in the world. Among the largest countries, Brazil has the largest share of its territory (24.2 percent) under environmental protection. Agricultural activity in Brazil covers only 29 percent of the territory. We are responsible for only 2 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. There is a lot of talk about deforestation: they usually compare felling areas to São Paulo regions, etc., but do not compare to the size of the Amazon itself. There is also a distinction to be made between illegal deforestation and the permitted use of 20 per cent of the area applicable to farmers who own farms in the Amazon area. Obviously, there is an international interest in distorting this information; if Brazil exploited its agricultural potential, it would greatly jeopardize the exports of other countries.

As I understand it, you were born and live in Brazil. What is it like to live there?

I was born in Rio de Janeiro and have lived here all my life. My mother is Brazilian and my father is Slovenian from Maribor. My father's family fled to Brazil in the 1950s. We still have contact with relatives in Maribor. Living in Brazil is wonderful and very difficult at the same time. Our culture is very rich, we have unparalleled natural beauties, the weather is pleasant throughout the year, not to mention our cuisine, music, sports, in short all the parts you hear most about us. The other side is more obscure: Brazil is a drug state. You've probably never heard of Foro de São Paulo either. Forum São Paulo? It is an organization founded in 1990 by Lula da Silva, Fidel Castro and Frei Betto to articulate all left-wing organizations and revive the communist movement in Latin America that was in crisis at the time because of the fall of the Soviet Union. Over the years, leftist parties, drug dealers, terrorist organizations have come together. Together they organize meetings and make decisions. Members of the São Paulo Forum have already been elected presidents throughout all Latin America.

This looks like the Mafia ...

Foro de São Paulo was hidden for 16 years by all the Brazilian media until it could no longer be done. Without understanding the role of this organization, it is completely impossible to understand what is happening in Brazil. Members of this organization have infiltrated our legislature, our judiciary, as well as every area you can think of. We can thank this for the high levels of violence, the endless bureaucracy that is destroying our lives, the embezzlement of our students, electoral fraud, etc. Such a state is suffocating. We pay the highest taxes in the world. As much as five monthly wages for a worker goes to taxes! We lived that way for many years. We now have someone in power with a completely different mind-set than before. We don't expect miracles from anyone, the system is still "well-equipped", but now we at least see an effort to move the country forward. The current atmosphere in Brazil gives rise to hope.

What do you do and what is your educational background?

My education is linguistics, I study philosophy, I have a lot of work with translations from Slovenian to Portuguese and most of the time I am involved in photography and video.

I would like to take this opportunity to share with you an independent film I made last year about my father's family, more specifically the grandfather who built a school in Rio de Janeiro that bears his name still today. You can watch the movie at www.dvorsak.com. Just be sure to turn on CC captions and select "interlingua" because the movie is bilingual. It's really worth watching.

I will definitely see it! Why did you decide to do this? Tell us more about him, please!

I decided to make the film with almost no resources, as the story deserves attention. Slovenians usually describe their country as a small country in Europe, but the stories I know from Slovenians around the world are always quite inspiring. Also, my family history is no different. Although his grandfather did not speak Portuguese, he managed to build a school in the poor area of Rio de Janeiro, which still has a significant impact on the lives of thousands of children because it is still the only public school in the region. It took me almost a year to produce the documentary, as I was alone at every step from shooting to editing. It was quite tiring, but it paid off. Today, film has even more special significance because less than a year after I made it, my grandmother died. It is valuable to our family that I immortalized her in my film.

How many Slovenians live in Brazil? Do you hang out together and how? Do you have societies?

I can't tell the exact number. The largest community, of course, is the Union of Slovenes of Brazil in São Paulo, which functions more or less as the centre of all. The Slovenians across the country are different. I know of the communities in Brasília, Recife, and of course in Rio de Janeiro, where I live.

We meet on the most important Slovenian holidays, but we organize various events - music, culinary, book releases and so on. You can find us on Facebook at the "Slovenes in Rio de Janeiro" page. There are also the pages of "União dos Eslovenos no Brasil" and of course the "Embassy of the RS Brasília".

We hear a lot, for example, about Venezuela and the crisis there. How do you look at it?

Brazilians sympathize with Venezuela. While the world was going crazy over Amazon, we were wondering in Brazil when they would become so interested in Venezuela. When will this become an "international crisis"? The Venezuelan dictator is a good friend of our past presidents Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, but unfortunately we know that the money that came from corruption in our country at that time was used to consolidate not only the Venezuelan dictatorship, but many others around the world. Many Venezuelans flee to Brazil and our border is a bit chaotic. We do not know how the situation will develop, but our current government is a strong threat to the Venezuelan dictatorship.

Have you been to Slovenia yet? How do you see it from afar?

I have been to Slovenia three times, always with the intention of learning Slovenian. I took courses at the Center for Slovene as a second/foreign language at the Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana, which allowed me to communicate much more skilfully. I only learned the most basic things from my family. Today I am in touch with friends I met when I was in Slovenia. I can't wait to make a visit again! In Brazil, there is very little talk about Slovenia. You got more attention when we hosted the Olympics. There were events then and Slovenia was generally advertised as the perfect destination.

 

Biography

Born in 1987 in Brazil, Erika Dvorzak has a Slovenian father. She is a translator from Slovenian into Portuguese, loves photography and film and studies philosophy. Last year, she made a documentary about her grandfather, a Slovenian from Maribor, who built a school in Rio de Janeiro, which is still called after him. Erik's grandfather Anton Dvorzak decided to flee out of the Yugoslavia because of the communist regime. With his wife and children who came with him, he settled in the municipality of Duque de Caxias in Rio de Janeiro in 1955.

...........................

Support The Demokracija magazine! Let´s make The Demokracija magazine possible! (HERE)

We have readers around the world, but we need your support.

Demokracija magazine and website www.demokracija.si are under attack of leftist government and left-wing activists. Wherever they can, they harass us. We need your support to be able to deliver you quality, investigative journalism. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our future.

You can donate your charitable contribution to our bank account number: SI56 0430 2000 2879 817, which is open at NKBM (with reference: SI00 1996 and attributed “for Demokracija”) or donate online below.

For transfers from abroad in addition to the transaction account, enter the SWIFT code: KBMASI2X

Thank you for your donation!

  • Written by
  • Read: 140 times

Delayed justice is denied justice!

»Horrifying and unbelievable until you see it with your own eyes« were the words of co-speaker Mrs. Darja Mihelcic, describing her findings, that in the court translations of the file, which will be used for the preparation of the expert opinion, she found 50 pages of rearranging of the content to her harm.

  • Written by
  • Read: 1337 times

Jože Biščak, editor in chief of the weekly magazine Demokracija: An open letter to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) at the Council of Europe

I am writing to you because in the European Commission's Report against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) by the Council of Europe (HERE) referring to Slovenia, there are mentioned weekly magazine Demokracija, where I am the editor-in-chief, and as patriotic and a freelance man who loves freedom, his homeland, Slovenia and Europe.

You have noted that the report is the result of analyses made on the basis of a large amount of information collected from a wide range of sources. I fully understand that you refer to official sources (the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, the police or the Ombudsman), that is to say, institutions that have power and influence, collecting data ex officio, but how much your range is really wide has been shown in media (paragraph 38), where you refer exclusively to one journalist society, although in Slovenia there are several journalistic associations and associations that differ in their views and opinions from the one you are referring to. It is the same with non-governmental organizations, where I cannot get rid of the feeling that they have been carefully selected only so that their findings and opinions are in line with your expectations to justify your existence and spending taxpayer money.

That is why your report is shameful, unilateral and biased. The report has nothing to do with democracy, which you like to refer to, has nothing to do with human rights, it still has less to do with freedom - that value that made the western world for the most magnificent civilization and put it in first place in human history. Freedom does not only mean that you are not deprived of liberty. Freedom is much more, it means that you have the right to act and freely express your opinions, without worrying that someone, especially authority from the position of political power, would be restrained. Your vocabulary in the report is far from this. It is the poisonous language of totalitarianism, which calls for the punishment of all who think differently.

What you write is a monologue. The document is clearly ideologically and politically colored, it has no connection with freedom. With democracy maybe, but this democracy is only according to your taste, it is made to your extent, it is the reflection of your vision of democracy. What is understandable in our understanding is that democracy is only a form and mode of governance, which does not yet guarantee freedom. That is why you have liberality in language only, liberalism for you means you look at matters exclusively from one side. And then you make a point and The End. For you, there is no other opinion, there is no other view. Everything that is not in accordance with your globalist agenda and the actions against the sovereign nations of Europe, among which we the Slovenes are, is the so-called hate speech for you. What you are doing is not a dialogue. This is a monologue in which you see only one side of the medal in the name of liberal, democratic and free-thinking thought, because your view does not go further. In doing so, you stubbornly insist on and urge the Slovenian government to prosecute and severely punish all those who, in particular, do not think and act in the same way as you have imagined, especially as regards illegal migrations and LGBT ideologies.

There is too much nonsense in your report to deal with everyone. I will concentrate mainly on your opinion that the so-called hate speech in Slovenia is not sufficiently prosecuted and punished. In your report, there is an indignation about the Slovenian Article 297 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Slovenia. Why? This article defines punishment for those who allegedly inflate hatred, violence or intolerance based on ethnic, racial, religious or ethnic affiliation, sex, skin colour or other beliefs. The same are punishable those who deny or diminish the significance of the Holocaust or the crimes against humanity. This article has a safeguard, which in some way protects the freedom of expression of the people against abuse of power. Namely, under this article, only those who threaten public order and peace can be punished, or do so by using a threat. You see this as a safeguard or in other words as a fulfilment of a condition for punishment or as an obstacle to the effective persecution of otherwise thinking people. You are inviting the government to eliminate this disadvantage or obstacle. You think that this is the reason that in Slovenia examples of hate speech are almost never prosecuted. Even more. From the 33rd point, it is regrettable that Slovenia, when leaving Yugoslavia, renounced the infamous Article 133 of the Criminal Code of the SFRJ, since it would be easier to persuade other people with this formulation of "verbal delict".

Are you totally out of your mind? How could something like that occur in your report? Do you even know how many people were beastly persecuted or murdered for the sake of Article 133? Do you even know that almost 2 million people have been killed by Tito and his communist regime in the former Yugoslavia after the Second World War? And that exclusively because they were of a different opinion than a monolithic and totalitarian power system. And you would now like to return Slovenia back, again, to accept an Article similar to the notorious Article 133, and thus begin to prosecute and punish everything that will not be in line with your agenda. You can be ashamed and also ashamed can be the ones that dictated you this report.

And so on… Your intellectual perversion really has no boundaries. Paragraph 15 states that there is no visible progress in taking into account ECRI's proposals on the prohibition of public funding by organizations that promote alleged racism, including political parties. And that the possibility of dissolving such organizations has not yet been enacted. Based on your writing and understanding of racism, you expect that in Slovenia patriotic organizations and political parties will be banned. It is heart-breaking that today, anyone who respects the national symbols, believes in a national identity and cultivates love for the homeland, is marked as a nationalist or racist. It is still missing only a bit and also national languages will be labelled as undesirable and also a national flag displayed above the house, which emphasizes national awareness, will become a symbol of xenophobia.

Weekly magazine Demokracija and Nova24TV are already labelled as racists and homophobic. Exclusively, because they emphasize patriotism, because they oppose illegal migration and fight against indoctrination with the LGBT agenda. They do not deny anyone the right to say that he lives in the way he suits and to declare even so retarded ideas, but as a journalist and editor, I take the right to say my own opinion, and that I freely spread my ideas, even if one of the groups (or any of the individuals) is offended or affected by it. It is not a human right not to be offended, but freedom of speech is a fundamental human right.

In paragraph 32, you are applauding to the Slovenian Prime Minister, Marjan Sarec, who called all state-owned companies not to advertise in certain patriotic media any more. If you think this is OK and in line with democracy and freedom, it does not seem OK to me. This is a typical abuse of power from a position of political power that has nothing to do in a normal and free country. The call of Mr. Sharec, which has the highest executive power in the country, is harmful, scandalous and embarrassing and has a direct intervention in a free enterprise initiative and on advertising market. In any case, his statement is the worst attack on freedom of expression after Slovenia's independence, and in direct contravention of the Constitution. And instead of condemning such attacks on freedom and democracy, the Council of Europe in cheerfully clapping to him.

Your report seriously undermines the future possibilities of free exchange of views and opinions. I'm going to fight against this. I will never allow people in the Council of Europe to set and define the limits of freedom of speech. This limit, which must be highly placed, can only be determined legally. You yourself have come to know this, but instead you still press on the Slovenian government to change the legislation according to your taste. I understand this as an attack on freedom, as an attempt to create a tyranny, as your desire for people in fear of law enforcement to resort to self-censorship.

That is why your speech on freedom in human rights is only an empty expression, which refers only that you are political corrective activists, who are trying to silence any critique of migration, Islam and the LGBT agenda. In fact, you do not fight against discrimination and intolerance; you are fighting against those who ask you to criticize and defend your culture, your tradition, your family and your nation. And you try to silence people, for then there will be no one who will defend the traditional values of the European nations. Is this your mission? In the name of what and whom?

In the name of freedom, on behalf of Slovenia and on behalf of Europe, I do not have a moral right to just shrug my shoulders regarding your report. It is my duty to draw attention loud and clear not only on your mistakes, but your deliberate misleading’s and manipulation, on the deliberate destruction of what is pleasing to us all, on the attempts to deny the ones who took care that the Slovenes survived as a nation for centuries. If I had acted differently, if I squeezed the tail between my legs and was quiet, I would betray myself and my beliefs, I would betray my own people, who are threaten with great danger due to uncontrolled and illegal migrations, I would betray other nations of Europe (with whom in history we also been in warfare, but we always find a way to peace), which today are sharing with us a similar fate.

That would be a great betrayal. That's why I will not be quiet. And even though you are the kind of people who claim to support freedom of expression, on the other hand, you will not hesitate to push the views of others through violent means. And I'm not just talking about harmful eccentricities in the Council of Europe, but about the orchestrated campaign and the attack of official international institutions of Europe on the fundamental human freedoms and values. The reflection of this is a shameful report about Slovenia, which I reject with disgust.

Mr. Jože Biscak, editor in chief of the weekly magazine Demokracija

Translate by Samo J.

Subscribe to this RSS feed