Majorityrights News > Category: European Union

When the most prominent publicist and right hand man of the serving government of Hungary uses language such as this, it isn’t time to be discouraged about White Nationalist efforts. It is time to increase initiatives: our voices are being heard. Mainstream politicians have begun speaking in explicit terms of our racial interest:

“The refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe is a racial war intended to annihilate White people.”

           
              Zsolt Bayer talking on September 13th

Fidesz founder says racial war being waged against whites in Europe:

Zsolt Bayer, a co-founder of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, a long-time friend of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the right’s most prominent publicist, sees the current refugee crisis in Hungary and Europe as a racial war intended to annihilate white people. Mr. Bayer shared these thoughts at a rally in Budapest this past Sunday, attended by an estimated 1,500 people, and organized to protest a magazine cover in Hungary, which portrayed Mr. Orbán with a mustache that resembled that of Adolf Hitler. In this paper, I have suggested before that Fidesz and the far right Jobbik party are indistinguishable. Perhaps I was wrong, because based on Mr. Bayer’s speech, Fidesz is now more extreme than the ominous opposition party.

Mr. Bayer’s premise, that dark forces are conspiring against white people throughout the world, is framed in a quote from controversial author, historian and race theorist Noel Ignatiev. Mr. Ignatiev has long seen race as a social construct, something that Mr. Bayer fails to mention to his audience, who he left thinking that the American theorist wants to annihilate white people. Mr. Ignatiev has spoken about wanting to “abolish the privileges of the white race” and added: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin.” Mr. Ignatiev, a long-time Marxist, is essentially suggesting that a type of constructed white identity carries with it automatic privilege, rendering equality between all races impossible. The theorist could have clearly phrased this in a less inflammatory matter, and his theories are Manichean and possibly somewhat outdated in the twenty-first century. But regardless: his overarching message of ingrained, implicit racism is worth considering.

The Fidesz co-founder portrays this Marxist academic as an influential thinker among western policymakers, a mover and a shaker, a man who walks the corridors of power with confidence and ease. This is simply not true, but Mr. Bayer’s audience is left thinking that a madman who wants to commit genocide against white people is a powerful voice in Washington.

“There are all kinds of weapons: traditional, chemical, atomic. And now we see that there are also racial weapons. This is the weapon that they, the invisible hands, employ against Europe and against the white race,” declared Mr. Bayer in Budapest.

The term “invisible hands,” within this context, is coded language, easily deciphered by everyone in that audience and on the Hungarian right as a reference to liberals, left-wingers and Jews. (Mr. Ignatiev is, himself, of Jewish origins.)

“Why has everyone, from everywhere and all at once, decided to start heading towards Europe? Why? Let us declare loudly and level-headedly: this is an artificial, manufactured mass migration. And its goal is the final and irreversible transformation of Europe’s ethnic and religious composition. And for this, they have already produced the necessary ideologies. According to the Harvard professor, the white race must be made to vanish,” said Mr. Bayer. At several times in his speech, the crowd, fired up by the orator, interrupted him.

The other “ideology” that Mr. Bayer dismisses is the fact that Europe’s population is ageing and dwindling, and that immigration is most likely the only way to ensure a large enough active adult population to keep pensions and social services sustainable. Mr. Bayer believes that European corporations want to employ “Syrian masons and Bedouin goat-herders” in their factories, rather than native European youth, because they represent cheap labour.

“Our leaders in Brussels want to sell Europe from over our heads and they want to destroy our Europe…Anyone who dares to oppose this automatically becomes a Nazi,” said Mr. Bayer, explaining to his audience why Orbán is often labeled extremist.

“But I have some bad news for these criminals, namely for the Austrian chancellor, the French foreign minister, the western journalists, who are liars to their very core and, of course, for the good-for-nothing people behind the Magyar Narancs publication: of the 500 million natives of Europe, 450 million do not want to see any more immigrants. The Hungarian prime minister represents their opinion,” declared the Fidesz publicist.

The crowd held up signs that read “Je suis Orbán,” amidst dozens of Hungarian and Szekler flags and the event’s organizers, the Forum for Civic Cooperation (Civil Összefogás Fórum – CÖF), a pseudo-NGO, fully in line with Fidesz party interests, declared that further protests were coming against the “liberal fascists” and those who criticize the prime minister.

While E.U. skepticism is more than valid in terms of its extant structure, operation, backing and representatives, can there be any doubt that European nations are better off coordinating their efforts if not cooperating with regard to their mutual interests and concerns?

That unity of effort is what we are calling a union, a European Union of sorts. Let this crisis shake trust in authority to its core and provide an opportunity for ethnonationalists. For we are operating of virtual, parallel nations (4th generation warfare). With that, we can seize this crisis to begin to determine the means and extent of our cooperation in a sovereign reconstruction of our national rule structures and their coordination - but again, who can argue that we have common interest in turning would-be non-European migrants away and repatriating a large percentage of the ones that are here?

Not only are we better off aligned against migrants as opposed to each other, but also aligned against those who are responsible for the pejorative rule structures as they presently exist and the implementation of those rules which brings invading migrants here.

There can be little dispute that European nations are better off with less conflict with one another and more aligned against non-European antagonists and European traitors.

The obvious fact of our allied interests accepted, attention then turns to a balance to be struck somewhere between cooperation and coordination.

With these ideas and the idea of sharing the reconstruction of our rules in our service we have an amazing opportunity to learn from the mistakes of World War II and do things correctly this time.  That is, unlike World War II, where we were fighting one another European Nations, we have an opportunity to do what should have been done then: respect one another ethno-nationalist sovereignties and coordinate the blockage, deportation and repatriation of non-Europeans and disproportionate non-native nationals.

This will require something like Frontex. The question is, how much cooperation or coordination do Europeans want to negotiate?

EU Observer, ‘Frontex in dire need of border guards’, 15 Sep 2015:

As Europe’s refugee crisis intensifies, the EU border agency, Frontex, is suffering from a drastic shortage of border guards on the Greek islands, on the land border between Greece and Turkey, between Bulgaria and Turkey, and along the Hungarian border with Serbia, according to an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ).

Five months after EU leaders increased Frontex’s budget by €26.8 million to cope with the refugee crisis, EU member states have not fully responded to repeated requests by Frontex for border guards and equipment to help tackle the problems on Europe’s external borders.

The revelation comes as Frontex’s executive director, Fabrice Leggeri, prepares to be grilled on Tuesday (15 September) by the European Parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee.

Committee chairman, Claude Moraes, to whom Frontex reports, described member states’ failure to provide the agency with the necessary resources at this “critical moment” as “scandalous”.

“Frontex is a crucial tool in the response to this crisis and people will therefore be astonished that despite funds being available it’s not adequately resourced so that it can carry out the first-tier response,” Moraes said.

Plea for help

Last April, EU heads of state signed off on the €26.8 million emergency grant at a high-level summit in what was portrayed as Europe uniting in its response to mass tragedies in the Mediterranean.

The money was supposed to allow Frontex to lease border guards and equipment from member states who would then be compensated by Frontex with the extra funds.

Last month, EU migration, home affairs and citizenship commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos wrote to all 28 interior ministers urging them to help.

But even that demand from the commissioner for migration to senior interior ministers across Europe has not delivered enough border guards and equipment.

As chaos continues to grip key migration routes, Frontex officials have admitted that they “badly need border guards on the Greek islands, border guards and technical equipment on the land border between Greece and Turkey, Bulgaria and Turkey and, crucially, along the Hungarian border with Serbia.”

Offers of key personnel and equipment from member states “are still very scarce”, said a Frontex spokeswoman.

This concluding part of Guillaume Faye’s article [The Migratory Invasion, Part 1: A Terrifying Diagnosis] hits upon the matter critically:

“this [crisis] could lead to fundamentally questioning the architecture and functioning of the European Union”

The matter is, if cooperation and coordination among European nations is necessary - and as we have said, of course it is, more or less - how are the blue prints of that (more or less) unionization to be redrawn and its manifest “architecture” to “function” and be managed?

Theoretically, “more” is characterized by more “cooperation” as distinguished from “less” which is characterized more like “coordination”, but it is still a necessary unionized effort to some extent.

More, coordination has more to do with non-interference with fellow ethnonationalists and acting without centralized directive, but rather autonomously and at the discretion of the parallel nation.

It will do no good to say that no level of cooperation or coordination is necessary as European nations will be impacted by what happens in other European nations.