Francis Berger's Blog, page 161
March 31, 2019
Time Change Sunday and the Welcome End of Daylight Savings Time
I sat through Mass this morning in a comatose state; the same comatose state I experience every year when daylight savings time comes into effect in spring. The annoying, back-to-the-future habit of setting clocks ahead one hour every spring is lauded, among other things, as an amazing energy saving scheme that benefits various business sectors and improves quality of life by extending the hours of sunlight into the evening. Personally, I believe the whole affair is a ridiculous, annoying, and mildly harmful waste of time (pun very much intended)!
Readers of this blog probably know I have an extremely low opinion of the European Union, but the EU has done one thing recently that I fully support and endorse - the eradication of daylight savings time. Last week, EU lawmakers, bless their little demonic minds, passed legislation to effectively stick a fork into the perplexing and idiotic habit of changing the clock twice a year. As of 2021, member states within the EU will have the opportunity to opt out of daylight savings time altogether, putting an end to the unnerving biannual time travel missions. Thankfully, it appears Hungary is on board, which means when I wake up in the spring of 2021, I will permanently return to being my true age after having become magically one hour younger over the course of an autumn night six months earlier.
This is likely the only time I shall ever express the sentiment I am about to express (so you might want to bookmark this page as it may gather historical significance over time), but it would be ignoble of me to not give credit where credit is due. Thusly, I congratulate the legislators at the EU - the vast majority of whom I consider evil incarnate - for passing the one good piece of legislation their poisoned little souls have ever drafted. It just goes to show, even the murky depths of evil are sometimes capable of some good. In any event, now that the EU has passed the only beneficial legislation it will ever generate, it has my full permission to obliterate itself and dissolve into nothingness so that more good can rush to fill the vacuum the EU's Babylonian maliciousness will leave in its wake as it implodes with all the destructive glory of ann imploding star (or, more appropriately, a collapsing circle of yellow stars).
Note: Studies have show the daylight savings time change increases the risk of heart attacks for men by 10%. I am planning to go for a 10 kilometer jog after I finish writing this blog post. If you don't hear from me tomorrow, it will be because I probably became one of these daylight savings time heart attack statistics.
Readers of this blog probably know I have an extremely low opinion of the European Union, but the EU has done one thing recently that I fully support and endorse - the eradication of daylight savings time. Last week, EU lawmakers, bless their little demonic minds, passed legislation to effectively stick a fork into the perplexing and idiotic habit of changing the clock twice a year. As of 2021, member states within the EU will have the opportunity to opt out of daylight savings time altogether, putting an end to the unnerving biannual time travel missions. Thankfully, it appears Hungary is on board, which means when I wake up in the spring of 2021, I will permanently return to being my true age after having become magically one hour younger over the course of an autumn night six months earlier.
This is likely the only time I shall ever express the sentiment I am about to express (so you might want to bookmark this page as it may gather historical significance over time), but it would be ignoble of me to not give credit where credit is due. Thusly, I congratulate the legislators at the EU - the vast majority of whom I consider evil incarnate - for passing the one good piece of legislation their poisoned little souls have ever drafted. It just goes to show, even the murky depths of evil are sometimes capable of some good. In any event, now that the EU has passed the only beneficial legislation it will ever generate, it has my full permission to obliterate itself and dissolve into nothingness so that more good can rush to fill the vacuum the EU's Babylonian maliciousness will leave in its wake as it implodes with all the destructive glory of ann imploding star (or, more appropriately, a collapsing circle of yellow stars).
Note: Studies have show the daylight savings time change increases the risk of heart attacks for men by 10%. I am planning to go for a 10 kilometer jog after I finish writing this blog post. If you don't hear from me tomorrow, it will be because I probably became one of these daylight savings time heart attack statistics.
March 30, 2019
Check Your Resentment. Check Your Despair
"Check your privilege" has become one of Leftism's favorite go-to platitudes. Many interpret the idea in the phrase as a call for compassion - a reminder that the body and life you enter the world with possesses specific privileges that should not or do not apply to all arguments or circumstances. The phrase also challenges you to become aware of your own inherent privileges and make an effort to cast them aside to better grasp or comprehend the circumstances of another person.
The apparent compassion within the phrase is merely a thin veneer. Strip it away, and you are left with a statement saturated in resentment. The phrase is not a call for compassion, but an accusation - one demanding the accused immediately shut their mouths and keep it shut.
In an ideal world, the phrase "check your privilege" would immediately be countered with something like "check your resentment", but this is not an ideal world, and I very much doubt Leftists could ever understand the phrase "check your resentment" if they were ever confronted by it. There is no such thing as resentment in Leftism, for the Leftist interprets resentment as nothing more than a rational call for justice.
Getting Leftists to acknowledge their intrinsic resentment is probably a futile endeavor, and it seems pointless to even try. A more fruitful and necessary undertaking for those of us opposed to Leftism should be to focus on ridding ourselves of any and all resentment. This does not imply we should never feel displeased, annoyed, or outraged, but we should express these feelings with strength, nobility, and dignity untinged by weakness, vulgarity or inferiority.
We must oppose the Left. Nevertheless, we should avoid wielding the same sword the Left employs. The Left's resentment is fermented spite, contempt, and envy, and their compulsive reactions are the results of long periods of bitter contemplation. We who oppose the Left should aim to display a more dynamic confidence and fullness of being, one free of envy and malice. When we react against threats to our well-being, we must ensure our being remains grounded in and supported by ultimate Being and Reality.
In addition, we should never indulge in despair. Regardless of how hopeless and futile circumstances in the world appear. When we lose hope, even for a moment, we become cowards, and we lose that grounding and support in ultimate Being and Reality. If we lose that, we are nothing.
When the Left demands we check our privilege, we should concentrate instead on checking our resentment and despair. If we possess either, we will defeat ourselves long before the Left ever could.
Note: This post is more a note to self than it is general advice. A self-reminder, if you will.
The apparent compassion within the phrase is merely a thin veneer. Strip it away, and you are left with a statement saturated in resentment. The phrase is not a call for compassion, but an accusation - one demanding the accused immediately shut their mouths and keep it shut.
In an ideal world, the phrase "check your privilege" would immediately be countered with something like "check your resentment", but this is not an ideal world, and I very much doubt Leftists could ever understand the phrase "check your resentment" if they were ever confronted by it. There is no such thing as resentment in Leftism, for the Leftist interprets resentment as nothing more than a rational call for justice.
Getting Leftists to acknowledge their intrinsic resentment is probably a futile endeavor, and it seems pointless to even try. A more fruitful and necessary undertaking for those of us opposed to Leftism should be to focus on ridding ourselves of any and all resentment. This does not imply we should never feel displeased, annoyed, or outraged, but we should express these feelings with strength, nobility, and dignity untinged by weakness, vulgarity or inferiority.
We must oppose the Left. Nevertheless, we should avoid wielding the same sword the Left employs. The Left's resentment is fermented spite, contempt, and envy, and their compulsive reactions are the results of long periods of bitter contemplation. We who oppose the Left should aim to display a more dynamic confidence and fullness of being, one free of envy and malice. When we react against threats to our well-being, we must ensure our being remains grounded in and supported by ultimate Being and Reality.
In addition, we should never indulge in despair. Regardless of how hopeless and futile circumstances in the world appear. When we lose hope, even for a moment, we become cowards, and we lose that grounding and support in ultimate Being and Reality. If we lose that, we are nothing.
When the Left demands we check our privilege, we should concentrate instead on checking our resentment and despair. If we possess either, we will defeat ourselves long before the Left ever could.
Note: This post is more a note to self than it is general advice. A self-reminder, if you will.
March 29, 2019
It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken
On what has become a day rife with disappointment, I thought a little melancholic music with an overall positive message might be in order.
Those who live or have lived in Canada will immediately recognize The Tragically Hip, an iconic rock band famous in their own country, but barely known outside its borders.
In any event, the lyrics of this song turn the title on its head by claiming "for a good life we just might have to weaken, and find somewhere to go. Go somewhere we're needed. Grow somewhere we needed."
This sounds negative at first, but it all depends on what "weakens" for the good life to become manifest. Whatever it might be, it involves going somewhere we are needed and growing once we reach that place. Hence, it is a weakening that generates purpose and growth. Whether taken literally or figuratively, I find the idea both inspiring and comforting. Lyrics - It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken
When the color of the night
And all the smoke for one life
Gives way to shaky movements
Improvisational skills
A forest of whispering speakers
Let's swear that we will
Get with the times
In a current health to stay
Let's get friendship right
Get life day-to-day
In the forget-yer-skates dream
Full of countervailing woes
Its diverse-as-ever seen
Proceeding on a need-to-know
In a face so full of meaning
As to almost make it glow
For a good life we just might have to weaken
And find somewhere to go
Go somewhere we're needed
Find somewhere to grow
Grow somewhere we're needed
Those who live or have lived in Canada will immediately recognize The Tragically Hip, an iconic rock band famous in their own country, but barely known outside its borders.
In any event, the lyrics of this song turn the title on its head by claiming "for a good life we just might have to weaken, and find somewhere to go. Go somewhere we're needed. Grow somewhere we needed."
This sounds negative at first, but it all depends on what "weakens" for the good life to become manifest. Whatever it might be, it involves going somewhere we are needed and growing once we reach that place. Hence, it is a weakening that generates purpose and growth. Whether taken literally or figuratively, I find the idea both inspiring and comforting. Lyrics - It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken
When the color of the night
And all the smoke for one life
Gives way to shaky movements
Improvisational skills
A forest of whispering speakers
Let's swear that we will
Get with the times
In a current health to stay
Let's get friendship right
Get life day-to-day
In the forget-yer-skates dream
Full of countervailing woes
Its diverse-as-ever seen
Proceeding on a need-to-know
In a face so full of meaning
As to almost make it glow
For a good life we just might have to weaken
And find somewhere to go
Go somewhere we're needed
Find somewhere to grow
Grow somewhere we're needed
March 28, 2019
Self-Sufficiency Daydreams
I spent most of my adult life living and working in big cities where I indulged in a recurring daydream – self-sufficient living. The grime, smog, and overcrowding of modern cities were probable sources of this yearning, but as I reflect upon it now, I realize my desire to pack it all in, move to the countryside, and establish a self-reliant form of living had more to do with my frustration and disillusionment with the modern world and my place in it than it did with any real yearning to become a self-reliant smallholder.
I nursed the self-sufficiency daydream for the better part of twenty years. Though it flared up inconstantly and intermittently – usually when I felt particularly demotivated and disillusioned by events in my day-to-day life – it was always there in the back of my mind, simmering away like a small pot of gravy on the back burner.
The daydream involved buying a parcel of land, building an off-the-grid house, learning how to farm and tend animals, and living a life in peace and tranquility far away from the maddening world. Occasionally, I invested small chunks of time into researching all of the previously mentioned points. Yet as the years ticked by, I remained in big cities and my self-sufficiency daydream remained bubbling on the back burner.
When we moved to Hungary four years ago, we spent the first year in an apartment in downtown Sopron. With a population of approximately 90,000, Sopron is a village compared to the cities we used to live in, but my wife and I had grown tired of living in apartments and urban settings, and we began to look around for a house in the countryside.
We went to view an old house with a 1500 square meter garden in a small village thirty kilometers away from Sopron. The house came complete with a well, pigsties, a small barn, a chicken coop, a smokehouse, rabbit hutches, raspberry bushes, fruit trees, and a large, neglected vegetable garden. Though the self-sufficiency daydream was more-or-less dormant in my head during this time, it did not take me long to realize the previous owner had succeeded in establishing, at bare minimum, a semi self-sufficient life for himself on the property. This recognition became a major buying point for me despite my overall abandonment of the self-sufficiency daydream years before.
Over the past three years, I have invested time and money into renovating the house, but I have left the pigsties, chicken coop, and all the rest of it neglected and unused. My wife plants a small vegetable garden every spring, enough for a few fresh tomatoes and peppers in July and August, but the vast majority of the yard remains uncultivated. The other day I experienced the following flash realization - I possess the thing for which I had yearned most of my adult life, yet I feel little motivation to utilize the potential the property offers.
As I thought about this, I slowly realized my self-sufficiency daydream always had more to do with my past situations than it did with any authentic desire to construct an independent, agrarian-based lifestyle. I now know that the self-sufficiency daydream roared like a hot fire whenever I was in situations that went against my person and destiny, and cooled considerably when circumstances aligned closer to my being.
It appears my being aligns well with my current circumstances and, for the most part, I must be doing what I should be doing because I never feel the yearning to create the kind of self-sufficient life I had daydreamed about in the past. That the means to do so are now firmly within my possession makes it all the more ironic.
In any case, I plan to fix the chicken coop this summer and landscape the yard to create a place for a huge vegetable patch I would like to plant next spring. I may not feel like becoming self-sufficient or semi self-sufficient now, but one never knows what the future may hold. One thing is certain – if I ever again feel the need to disentangle myself from the maddening world, I will not have to waste any more time daydreaming about it.
I nursed the self-sufficiency daydream for the better part of twenty years. Though it flared up inconstantly and intermittently – usually when I felt particularly demotivated and disillusioned by events in my day-to-day life – it was always there in the back of my mind, simmering away like a small pot of gravy on the back burner.
The daydream involved buying a parcel of land, building an off-the-grid house, learning how to farm and tend animals, and living a life in peace and tranquility far away from the maddening world. Occasionally, I invested small chunks of time into researching all of the previously mentioned points. Yet as the years ticked by, I remained in big cities and my self-sufficiency daydream remained bubbling on the back burner.
When we moved to Hungary four years ago, we spent the first year in an apartment in downtown Sopron. With a population of approximately 90,000, Sopron is a village compared to the cities we used to live in, but my wife and I had grown tired of living in apartments and urban settings, and we began to look around for a house in the countryside.
We went to view an old house with a 1500 square meter garden in a small village thirty kilometers away from Sopron. The house came complete with a well, pigsties, a small barn, a chicken coop, a smokehouse, rabbit hutches, raspberry bushes, fruit trees, and a large, neglected vegetable garden. Though the self-sufficiency daydream was more-or-less dormant in my head during this time, it did not take me long to realize the previous owner had succeeded in establishing, at bare minimum, a semi self-sufficient life for himself on the property. This recognition became a major buying point for me despite my overall abandonment of the self-sufficiency daydream years before.
Over the past three years, I have invested time and money into renovating the house, but I have left the pigsties, chicken coop, and all the rest of it neglected and unused. My wife plants a small vegetable garden every spring, enough for a few fresh tomatoes and peppers in July and August, but the vast majority of the yard remains uncultivated. The other day I experienced the following flash realization - I possess the thing for which I had yearned most of my adult life, yet I feel little motivation to utilize the potential the property offers.
As I thought about this, I slowly realized my self-sufficiency daydream always had more to do with my past situations than it did with any authentic desire to construct an independent, agrarian-based lifestyle. I now know that the self-sufficiency daydream roared like a hot fire whenever I was in situations that went against my person and destiny, and cooled considerably when circumstances aligned closer to my being.
It appears my being aligns well with my current circumstances and, for the most part, I must be doing what I should be doing because I never feel the yearning to create the kind of self-sufficient life I had daydreamed about in the past. That the means to do so are now firmly within my possession makes it all the more ironic.
In any case, I plan to fix the chicken coop this summer and landscape the yard to create a place for a huge vegetable patch I would like to plant next spring. I may not feel like becoming self-sufficient or semi self-sufficient now, but one never knows what the future may hold. One thing is certain – if I ever again feel the need to disentangle myself from the maddening world, I will not have to waste any more time daydreaming about it.
March 27, 2019
Everybody Must Get Stoned
I don’t use recreational drugs and do not have a high opinion of them. When it comes to other people’s choices regarding their own drug use, I am somewhat indifferent and regard the matter much the same way I regard a person’s drinking habits. Having said that, I am a little uneasy about all the cannabis deregulation happening in places like Canada and the United States.
Smoking pot has long been a continental pastime in North America. A great portion of the population was getting high on pot even when it was illegal and somewhat difficult to procure. Now that it has been legalized to some degree, I imagine a greater portion of the population will indulge in weed on a consistent basis, which is all fine and well if you see no harm in a vast segment of the population being high regularly. I have no desire to wade into the “alcohol is worse than pot” debate or embroil myself in any individual rights arguments, but regardless of the substance, I do find it alarming that getting wasted has become an acceptable, perhaps even necessary, precondition for living in our modern world.
On the one hand, I see the legalization of cannabis as nothing more than an enterprising ploy to collect more taxes for national coffers as governments around the world scramble to get in on what is proving to be a formidable cash cow. On the other hand, I suspect governments in the West are using the liberalization of pot as another means through which to keep populations placated and docile. When I imagine Westerners smoking a good joint after a hard day’s work, I cannot help but think of Huxley’s soma in Brave New World. A few puffs and all problems dissolve. Everything is swell again and the world becomes a happy, peaceful place – at least until the following morning beyond which another hard day awaits.
Once again, I must stress that I am rather indifferent to the whole topic of drugs. My general view of drug use is disapproval, but I believe the choice to indulge or not indulge in drugs, or even alcohol for that matter, rests at the level of the individual. For example, I drink alcohol occasionally, but rarely to the point of total inebriation. Sure, my past is filled with its fair share of benders, but over the years, I have learned that getting sauced on a consistent basis is less than optimal and has profound negative effects on every aspect of life. In addition, I have seen my fair share of alcohol-related tragedy to recognize the danger embedded in booze. At the same time, I am somewhat perturbed by the casual belief that cannabis is essentially an innocuous drug. Perhaps it is if used infrequently it is, but the chronic pot smokers I have known all displayed signs of weed’s adverse effects. Most prominent among these was a pronounced dulling of the mind.
Inebriation is an altered state of consciousness and perhaps there are times when an altered state of consciousness brought about by inebriation may feel good or put one in the right mood for celebration or relaxation, but I have never really understood the persistent need to alter the state of one’s consciousness through inebriation. To be sure, addiction comes into play, but in my mind, the constant desire to be drunk or high reveals something has gone terribly wrong at the spiritual level.
New streams of income aside, I suspect the Establishment is using the deregulation of banned substances as further means of population control. A “high” population is a docile and happy one, and docile, “happy” people is exactly what the Establishment is aiming for short-term. In the long-term, the Establishment is primarily interested in the destruction of souls. With increased legalized inebriation, the Establishment can essentially kill two birds with one stone. It can help people cast themselves further into the pits of spiritual crisis while simultaneously and beneficently offering the populace a hedonistic means through which to escape the suffering and emptiness inherent in individual and national spiritual crises.
Stoned people are much easier to stone.
Smoking pot has long been a continental pastime in North America. A great portion of the population was getting high on pot even when it was illegal and somewhat difficult to procure. Now that it has been legalized to some degree, I imagine a greater portion of the population will indulge in weed on a consistent basis, which is all fine and well if you see no harm in a vast segment of the population being high regularly. I have no desire to wade into the “alcohol is worse than pot” debate or embroil myself in any individual rights arguments, but regardless of the substance, I do find it alarming that getting wasted has become an acceptable, perhaps even necessary, precondition for living in our modern world.
On the one hand, I see the legalization of cannabis as nothing more than an enterprising ploy to collect more taxes for national coffers as governments around the world scramble to get in on what is proving to be a formidable cash cow. On the other hand, I suspect governments in the West are using the liberalization of pot as another means through which to keep populations placated and docile. When I imagine Westerners smoking a good joint after a hard day’s work, I cannot help but think of Huxley’s soma in Brave New World. A few puffs and all problems dissolve. Everything is swell again and the world becomes a happy, peaceful place – at least until the following morning beyond which another hard day awaits.
Once again, I must stress that I am rather indifferent to the whole topic of drugs. My general view of drug use is disapproval, but I believe the choice to indulge or not indulge in drugs, or even alcohol for that matter, rests at the level of the individual. For example, I drink alcohol occasionally, but rarely to the point of total inebriation. Sure, my past is filled with its fair share of benders, but over the years, I have learned that getting sauced on a consistent basis is less than optimal and has profound negative effects on every aspect of life. In addition, I have seen my fair share of alcohol-related tragedy to recognize the danger embedded in booze. At the same time, I am somewhat perturbed by the casual belief that cannabis is essentially an innocuous drug. Perhaps it is if used infrequently it is, but the chronic pot smokers I have known all displayed signs of weed’s adverse effects. Most prominent among these was a pronounced dulling of the mind.
Inebriation is an altered state of consciousness and perhaps there are times when an altered state of consciousness brought about by inebriation may feel good or put one in the right mood for celebration or relaxation, but I have never really understood the persistent need to alter the state of one’s consciousness through inebriation. To be sure, addiction comes into play, but in my mind, the constant desire to be drunk or high reveals something has gone terribly wrong at the spiritual level.
New streams of income aside, I suspect the Establishment is using the deregulation of banned substances as further means of population control. A “high” population is a docile and happy one, and docile, “happy” people is exactly what the Establishment is aiming for short-term. In the long-term, the Establishment is primarily interested in the destruction of souls. With increased legalized inebriation, the Establishment can essentially kill two birds with one stone. It can help people cast themselves further into the pits of spiritual crisis while simultaneously and beneficently offering the populace a hedonistic means through which to escape the suffering and emptiness inherent in individual and national spiritual crises.
Stoned people are much easier to stone.
March 26, 2019
Hungary Refuses to Get With the Program
The UN Global Compact for Migration declares migration to be "inevitable, necessary, and desirable." To a certain extent, I agree. At the level of individuals and in small numbers, migration is inevitable and, occasionally, even necessary and desirable.
Whether it is for marriage, business, job offers, travel, study, or countless other reasons people have been leaving their home countries and moving to other countries for centuries. Done correctly, legally, and in manageable numbers, this type of migration can benefit both migrants and the country accepting them.
Ideally, migrants of these kind will choose to integrate into their host countries and the host countries in turn will welcome them into their respective societies. What level of individual-based migration a given country desires or can cope with should be left up the host country to decide. So, at this level, migration is indeed inevitable and can even be necessary or desirable if the host country can accommodate migrants without destabilizing or radically altering its existing society
Yet this is not the kind of migration the UN Global Compact for Migration refers to as inevitable, necessary, and desirable. For the UN, it is mass migration that is inevitable, necessary, desirable. Those in Europe who think the mass migration event of 2015 was a one-off because of the Syrian refugee crisis are in for a rather rude awakening. Through the incorporation of the UN Global Compact for Migration, the EU has no intention of ever taking its foot from the gas pedal of mass migration. On the contrary, it intends to keep the pedal to the metal and rev the migration engine into the red zone for perpetuity.
Recent developments reveal the EU is drafting legislation to make the non-binding UN Global Compact for Migration binding for all EU states, even for countries that withdrew from the compact altogether. Several EU leaders have candidly observed that they could not conceive of any EU country not participating in some kind of migrant-sharing program, and they brand as xenophobic and racist any EU country that refuses to participate .
In a nutshell - there is a Program. That Program is mass migration to Europe. As stated above, it is being sold as inevitable, necessary, and desirable. This immediately begs a few questions.
For one, why is it inevitable? As far as I could tell, the vast majority of the migrants who successfully entered Europe only managed to do so because they were actively being transported onto the continent through one means or another. When those means were stopped, migration was reduced to a trickle. Imagine what might happen if borders were actually enforced?
Secondly, why is it necessary and desirable? Or perhaps the better question would be - for whom or what is it necessary and desirable? What necessities and desires do mass migration into Europe fulfill? The answer lies with the same people pushing the mantra of the inherent goodness of mass migration. They know exactly why it is needed and what makes it so desirable.
One thing is certain, the EU cares not one ounce for Christianity or the native European populations it pretends to represent, and it treats Europeans who express a love for their nation, culture, or Christianity with contempt and scorn.
Hungary has been at the epicenter of the EU's contempt for nearly four years because it refuses to get with the mass migration Program as demonstrated in a recent parliamentary address where the Hungarian foreign minister frankly declared the country would never allow itself to be pressured into accepting mass migration.
To some extent, Hungary already is, and always has been, an immigrant country. For example, my ancestors were of German stock. Most of the people in my village are of Croatian descent. Two or three Austrian families also make the village home and I am originally from New York City. A popular television talk show host moved to Hungary from India. Two half-Chinese brothers have been winning gold at speed-skating competitions. Walk down any street in Budapest and you are bound to encounter a few non-Hungarians who have made their home in Hungary. In most cases, these individuals have chosen to settle here and have, more or less, adapted to the culture of the country. The number who have not adapted to Hungarian culture are too few to pressure the social cohesion and traditions of the country.
Hungary's current immigration policies are designed for migration at the individual level. It accepts people through marriage to a citizen, naturalizes some citizenship applications, accepts "golden visa" applications for wealthier individuals (something I don't agree with), recently granted refugee asylum for 300 Venezuelans of Hungarian descent and, yes, even grants refuge for some who claim asylum at its borders. So in this sense, Hungary is not an anti-immigration country. What Hungary is vehemently against is the mass migration it witnessed in 2015 when over 400,000 people illegally poured over its borders as they made their way toward Germany and other EU nations.
Hungary's anti-mass migration stance is in complete opposition the UN and the EU. Unlike these two international bureaucracies, Hungary sees nothing inevitable, necessary, or desirable in mass migration. Much to the chagrin of the UN and EU, Hungary does not view mass migration as an opportunity, but as an existential threat. A small landlocked nation of fewer than ten million, Hungary's current government understands that admitting several hundred thousand or more migrants from foreign countries within a relatively short period of time would pose serious risks for the country's social stability and cohesion and, in the long term, would pose a challenge to Hungary's unique culture, traditions, and Christianity.
Hungary does not oppose mass migration because it hates people from other lands, but rather because it loves its own land and the people who live on it. A half-century ago, this sentiment would have been understood as commonsense and logical. Sadly, today it is viewed only as an admission of hatred and intolerance. The Establishment has successful inverted all values associated with patriotism. Loving your country and its people is bigoted and hateful. True love lies in sacrificing your country to the other and loving the other instead of your own. Unfortunately, many Christians have come to believe this is also the Christian thing to do.
This is value delusion of the highest kind and it has infected a great deal of people in the West. The mere thought of preferring one's countryman or woman to the outsider is enough to cast a sheen of guilt upon the hearts of many. Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising considering the half-century of indoctrination to which the nations of the West have submitted. As a consequence, many in the West see nothing wrong with the Program and are incapable of viewing mass migration as anything but inevitable, necessary, and desirable. They are also incapable of regarding anyone who objects to mass migration as anything but ignorant, racist, or simply evil as demonstrated in the short video below between CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour and Hungary's Foreign Minister, Péter Szijártó.
When Szijártó explains Hungary's wish to retain its sovereignty, homogeneity, and Christianity, Amanpour winces and snaps that she understands that, but what she really wants is to get to the bottom of that sentiment.
Translation: Your claim that you wish to preserve your country, culture, and religion is just a ruse for racism, xenophobia, and intolerance. In a word - white supremacy.
And this is the trick that keeps everyone cowering in fear of saying something deemed unacceptable. The grand value delusion of mass migration has made cowards of most of us, which is why I rather admire the upfront, blunt, honest, and unapologetic manner in which the Hungarians address the issue.
Hungary refuses to get with the Program, no matter how inevitable, necessary, and desirable it is deemed to be.
Whether it is for marriage, business, job offers, travel, study, or countless other reasons people have been leaving their home countries and moving to other countries for centuries. Done correctly, legally, and in manageable numbers, this type of migration can benefit both migrants and the country accepting them.
Ideally, migrants of these kind will choose to integrate into their host countries and the host countries in turn will welcome them into their respective societies. What level of individual-based migration a given country desires or can cope with should be left up the host country to decide. So, at this level, migration is indeed inevitable and can even be necessary or desirable if the host country can accommodate migrants without destabilizing or radically altering its existing society
Yet this is not the kind of migration the UN Global Compact for Migration refers to as inevitable, necessary, and desirable. For the UN, it is mass migration that is inevitable, necessary, desirable. Those in Europe who think the mass migration event of 2015 was a one-off because of the Syrian refugee crisis are in for a rather rude awakening. Through the incorporation of the UN Global Compact for Migration, the EU has no intention of ever taking its foot from the gas pedal of mass migration. On the contrary, it intends to keep the pedal to the metal and rev the migration engine into the red zone for perpetuity.
Recent developments reveal the EU is drafting legislation to make the non-binding UN Global Compact for Migration binding for all EU states, even for countries that withdrew from the compact altogether. Several EU leaders have candidly observed that they could not conceive of any EU country not participating in some kind of migrant-sharing program, and they brand as xenophobic and racist any EU country that refuses to participate .
In a nutshell - there is a Program. That Program is mass migration to Europe. As stated above, it is being sold as inevitable, necessary, and desirable. This immediately begs a few questions.
For one, why is it inevitable? As far as I could tell, the vast majority of the migrants who successfully entered Europe only managed to do so because they were actively being transported onto the continent through one means or another. When those means were stopped, migration was reduced to a trickle. Imagine what might happen if borders were actually enforced?
Secondly, why is it necessary and desirable? Or perhaps the better question would be - for whom or what is it necessary and desirable? What necessities and desires do mass migration into Europe fulfill? The answer lies with the same people pushing the mantra of the inherent goodness of mass migration. They know exactly why it is needed and what makes it so desirable.
One thing is certain, the EU cares not one ounce for Christianity or the native European populations it pretends to represent, and it treats Europeans who express a love for their nation, culture, or Christianity with contempt and scorn.
Hungary has been at the epicenter of the EU's contempt for nearly four years because it refuses to get with the mass migration Program as demonstrated in a recent parliamentary address where the Hungarian foreign minister frankly declared the country would never allow itself to be pressured into accepting mass migration.
To some extent, Hungary already is, and always has been, an immigrant country. For example, my ancestors were of German stock. Most of the people in my village are of Croatian descent. Two or three Austrian families also make the village home and I am originally from New York City. A popular television talk show host moved to Hungary from India. Two half-Chinese brothers have been winning gold at speed-skating competitions. Walk down any street in Budapest and you are bound to encounter a few non-Hungarians who have made their home in Hungary. In most cases, these individuals have chosen to settle here and have, more or less, adapted to the culture of the country. The number who have not adapted to Hungarian culture are too few to pressure the social cohesion and traditions of the country.
Hungary's current immigration policies are designed for migration at the individual level. It accepts people through marriage to a citizen, naturalizes some citizenship applications, accepts "golden visa" applications for wealthier individuals (something I don't agree with), recently granted refugee asylum for 300 Venezuelans of Hungarian descent and, yes, even grants refuge for some who claim asylum at its borders. So in this sense, Hungary is not an anti-immigration country. What Hungary is vehemently against is the mass migration it witnessed in 2015 when over 400,000 people illegally poured over its borders as they made their way toward Germany and other EU nations.
Hungary's anti-mass migration stance is in complete opposition the UN and the EU. Unlike these two international bureaucracies, Hungary sees nothing inevitable, necessary, or desirable in mass migration. Much to the chagrin of the UN and EU, Hungary does not view mass migration as an opportunity, but as an existential threat. A small landlocked nation of fewer than ten million, Hungary's current government understands that admitting several hundred thousand or more migrants from foreign countries within a relatively short period of time would pose serious risks for the country's social stability and cohesion and, in the long term, would pose a challenge to Hungary's unique culture, traditions, and Christianity.
Hungary does not oppose mass migration because it hates people from other lands, but rather because it loves its own land and the people who live on it. A half-century ago, this sentiment would have been understood as commonsense and logical. Sadly, today it is viewed only as an admission of hatred and intolerance. The Establishment has successful inverted all values associated with patriotism. Loving your country and its people is bigoted and hateful. True love lies in sacrificing your country to the other and loving the other instead of your own. Unfortunately, many Christians have come to believe this is also the Christian thing to do.
This is value delusion of the highest kind and it has infected a great deal of people in the West. The mere thought of preferring one's countryman or woman to the outsider is enough to cast a sheen of guilt upon the hearts of many. Nevertheless, it is hardly surprising considering the half-century of indoctrination to which the nations of the West have submitted. As a consequence, many in the West see nothing wrong with the Program and are incapable of viewing mass migration as anything but inevitable, necessary, and desirable. They are also incapable of regarding anyone who objects to mass migration as anything but ignorant, racist, or simply evil as demonstrated in the short video below between CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour and Hungary's Foreign Minister, Péter Szijártó.
When Szijártó explains Hungary's wish to retain its sovereignty, homogeneity, and Christianity, Amanpour winces and snaps that she understands that, but what she really wants is to get to the bottom of that sentiment.
Translation: Your claim that you wish to preserve your country, culture, and religion is just a ruse for racism, xenophobia, and intolerance. In a word - white supremacy.
And this is the trick that keeps everyone cowering in fear of saying something deemed unacceptable. The grand value delusion of mass migration has made cowards of most of us, which is why I rather admire the upfront, blunt, honest, and unapologetic manner in which the Hungarians address the issue.
Hungary refuses to get with the Program, no matter how inevitable, necessary, and desirable it is deemed to be.
March 25, 2019
Who is the Main Threat to the Future of Europe?
On January 27, 2017, Viktor Orbán published an article titled "Hungary and the Crisis in Europe" in which he outlined Hungary's position on mass migration. The excerpts below are still as relevant today as they were two years ago. Say what you will about Orbán, but he is one of the few politicians in Europe who addresses mass migration with any level of honesty. He also has no qualms clearly stating where the blame for mass migration lies.
I generally do not care much for politics, but current events in Britain and Europe have imposed themselves on the spiritual in ways that simply cannot be ignored. I am convinced Brexit and the upcoming European Parliamentary elections will be critical turning points in European history, complete with spiritual repercussions that will impact future generations.
I have posted the excerpt from Orbán's article below because I doubt it received any coverage in the West outside of Hungary when it was first published. If you feel so inclined, I encourage you to read the whole article in the link above.
It is not impossible to put the brakes on mass migration. Europe is a 500-million-strong community in possession of sufficiently advanced technology, strategy, and economy to defend itself. That Brussels is incapable of organising the ranks of defence for Europe is bad news, but that it has no intention to do so is worse still. In Budapest, Warsaw, Prague or Bratislava, we find it difficult to comprehend how we have ended up in a position where we are supposed to allow anyone from another continent and culture to enter without any measure of control. How was it possible that the natural, indeed elemental, instinct to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, and our lands should atrophy in our civilization? Yet apparently it had done so.
And we discovered the fact in 2015 when everything changed overnight. The former consensus was shattered to pieces, and we awoke one morning to voices clamouring for Willkommenskultur and for changing all the previous rules and agreements in order to make good on the promise. The leaders of Europe keep telling us we must help. From the highest echelons of power, we are being entreated to open our homes in the name of solidarity.
If we hesitate to do so, we cannot be accused of callousness. We have learned the principal law of assistance: If we help them where we are, they will flock here; if we help them where they are, they will stay at home, in their native land.
Instead of recognising this truth, Brussels began to encourage people living in some of the most impoverished and hapless parts of the planet to come to Europe, trading the life they knew for something different. How could this happen?
I for one am convinced that, in Brussels and a few other European capitals, the political and intellectual elite is pitted against the majority of the people, who still nourish patriotic and commonsense sympathies. Indeed, as far as I can see, the leading politicians are aware that this division exists. If indeed that is so, it means that the real problem is not on the outside but inside Europe. The main threat to the future of Europe are not those who want to come here to live, but our own political, economic and intellectual elites bent on transforming Europe against the will of the European people.
Read the rest here .
I generally do not care much for politics, but current events in Britain and Europe have imposed themselves on the spiritual in ways that simply cannot be ignored. I am convinced Brexit and the upcoming European Parliamentary elections will be critical turning points in European history, complete with spiritual repercussions that will impact future generations.
I have posted the excerpt from Orbán's article below because I doubt it received any coverage in the West outside of Hungary when it was first published. If you feel so inclined, I encourage you to read the whole article in the link above.
It is not impossible to put the brakes on mass migration. Europe is a 500-million-strong community in possession of sufficiently advanced technology, strategy, and economy to defend itself. That Brussels is incapable of organising the ranks of defence for Europe is bad news, but that it has no intention to do so is worse still. In Budapest, Warsaw, Prague or Bratislava, we find it difficult to comprehend how we have ended up in a position where we are supposed to allow anyone from another continent and culture to enter without any measure of control. How was it possible that the natural, indeed elemental, instinct to defend ourselves, our families, our homes, and our lands should atrophy in our civilization? Yet apparently it had done so.
And we discovered the fact in 2015 when everything changed overnight. The former consensus was shattered to pieces, and we awoke one morning to voices clamouring for Willkommenskultur and for changing all the previous rules and agreements in order to make good on the promise. The leaders of Europe keep telling us we must help. From the highest echelons of power, we are being entreated to open our homes in the name of solidarity.
If we hesitate to do so, we cannot be accused of callousness. We have learned the principal law of assistance: If we help them where we are, they will flock here; if we help them where they are, they will stay at home, in their native land.
Instead of recognising this truth, Brussels began to encourage people living in some of the most impoverished and hapless parts of the planet to come to Europe, trading the life they knew for something different. How could this happen?
I for one am convinced that, in Brussels and a few other European capitals, the political and intellectual elite is pitted against the majority of the people, who still nourish patriotic and commonsense sympathies. Indeed, as far as I can see, the leading politicians are aware that this division exists. If indeed that is so, it means that the real problem is not on the outside but inside Europe. The main threat to the future of Europe are not those who want to come here to live, but our own political, economic and intellectual elites bent on transforming Europe against the will of the European people.
Read the rest here .
March 24, 2019
Plum Blossom Sunday
Wild Plum Blossoms - Stefan Conka - 2017 Blossoming wild plum trees blanket the landscape in white tufts. From a distance, the hills appear shrouded in anachronistic snow. The rest is either dormant or just awakening, leaving the plum trees to reign immaculately over the still, barren landscape.It was the most glorious of Sundays, perfectly fitting for the first Sunday after the equinox and the full moon. In the fields, forests, and hills the plum blossoms heralded the promise of resurrected life. Wayward clouds descended to the earth singing voicelessly in a color encompassing all colors. If you listened carefully, you could hear their white whispers waft through the still air, manifesting a new symbol the first rough winds will surely dispel.
Yet, even the roughest of winds cannot shake the promise the blossoms have revealed, not even after their petals are scattered mercilessly across the land – the confetti remnants of a feast few noticed, let alone celebrated.
March 23, 2019
Not Talking About Movies
The other day I realized I have not talked about movies to anyone for well over a year. In fact, the number of times film has been a topic of conversation during my four years in Hungary easily fits on the fingers of one of my hands. This is rather new for me because when I lived in the United States and Canada movies were always a topic of conversation regardless of whom I spoke with, be they classmates, colleagues, friends, family, or even strangers.
Hey, have you seen . . . ? What did you think of . . . ? Did you like . . . ? I can't wait to see the new . . . ? Are you going to see . . . ? Are you a fan of . . . ?
No matter what the original conversation topic had been, my discussions with other North Americans ultimately included one or several of the questions above, which often lead to lengthy digressions into movies, celebrities, Hollywood, and all the rest of it. In North America people relish describing movie scenes, mimicking dialogue, retelling jokes and punchlines, and describing the emotions they experienced as they watched the latest blockbuster. Of course, I barely noticed this when I lived in North America where talking about movies forms an enormous part of everyday small talk, chitchat, and serious conversation. As a discussion topic, I surmise it is second only to weather.
In Hungary, films are rarely a topic of discussion. Sure, Hungarians watch and enjoy movies as much as anyone else in the West, but they seldom bring films up when you talk to them and, I have noticed, often find it somewhat strange when you do. If you ask the average Hungarian if he or she has seen this or that, they will usually just say yes or no and perhaps mention whether or not they liked the film in question, but they hardly ever delve any deeper into the topic than that.
Naturally, this must have something to do with culture. I imagine movies are a popular topic in North American because they form such a large part of North American culture. Movies are also probably considered a somewhat neutral domain; in other words, they are something everyone in the United States and Canada can talk about regardless of their background. I'm speculating here, but perhaps the movies are the only real unifying culture an otherwise polarized North America has left.
Whatever the case, the same does not hold true here in Hungary. People like watching films, but rarely feel impelled to talk much about what they have seen. At first this struck me as odd, but after four years I have come to appreciate not talking about or hearing about movies all the time and, to be honest, I don't miss it all that much either.
Hey, have you seen . . . ? What did you think of . . . ? Did you like . . . ? I can't wait to see the new . . . ? Are you going to see . . . ? Are you a fan of . . . ?
No matter what the original conversation topic had been, my discussions with other North Americans ultimately included one or several of the questions above, which often lead to lengthy digressions into movies, celebrities, Hollywood, and all the rest of it. In North America people relish describing movie scenes, mimicking dialogue, retelling jokes and punchlines, and describing the emotions they experienced as they watched the latest blockbuster. Of course, I barely noticed this when I lived in North America where talking about movies forms an enormous part of everyday small talk, chitchat, and serious conversation. As a discussion topic, I surmise it is second only to weather.
In Hungary, films are rarely a topic of discussion. Sure, Hungarians watch and enjoy movies as much as anyone else in the West, but they seldom bring films up when you talk to them and, I have noticed, often find it somewhat strange when you do. If you ask the average Hungarian if he or she has seen this or that, they will usually just say yes or no and perhaps mention whether or not they liked the film in question, but they hardly ever delve any deeper into the topic than that.
Naturally, this must have something to do with culture. I imagine movies are a popular topic in North American because they form such a large part of North American culture. Movies are also probably considered a somewhat neutral domain; in other words, they are something everyone in the United States and Canada can talk about regardless of their background. I'm speculating here, but perhaps the movies are the only real unifying culture an otherwise polarized North America has left.
Whatever the case, the same does not hold true here in Hungary. People like watching films, but rarely feel impelled to talk much about what they have seen. At first this struck me as odd, but after four years I have come to appreciate not talking about or hearing about movies all the time and, to be honest, I don't miss it all that much either.
March 22, 2019
Hungary - The EUmpire Strikes Back
Viktor Orbán has invested a considerable amount of time and energy into provoking the EU and the European People's Party into an attack. It appears his efforts have paid out handsomely. The only question that remains is, What happens next?
While the British people have had to endure the nauseating rollercoaster nightmare Brexit has become, Hungarians are currently bracing themselves for the possibility of turbulence in the near future.
A few days ago, the European People’s Party suspended Fidesz, the Hungarian ruling party, from its ranks as retaliation for Orbán’s alleged illiberalism, flagrant flouting of “European values”, and staunch anti-mass migration stance. This latest rebuke of Orbán specifically and Hungary in general follows hard on the heels of the EU’s triggering of Article 7 proceedings against the country in September, 2018.
Hungary’s appearance of conflict has now met the European Union’s appearance of force. Anyone who understands the secret rules of engagement knows compromise under such circumstances is impossible, as the following quotes demonstrate,
“We cannot compromise on democracy, rule of law, freedom of press, academic freedom or minorities rights. And anti-EU rhetoric is unacceptable. The divergences between EPP and Fidesz must cease,” Joseph Daul, the president of that coalition (the European People’s Party) said Wednesday.
A Hungarian official offered the following prior to the EPP vote,
A Hungarian government official stressed before the vote to suspend the party that they would “under no circumstances be able to compromise on fundamental issues such as the defense of Christian culture or the rejection of immigration.”
With compromise seemingly out of the question, something must give. In my opinion, whatever “gives” will determine not only Hungary’s fate, but the long-term feasibility of the European Union as whole.
What are the stakes? Well, as the quote above demonstrates, on the one side you have the EU’s Babylonian vision of Europe - the establishment of a homogenized, bureaucratic, totalitarian state controlled under the banners of my favorite value delusions: freedom, democracy, and human rights. On the other side you have the struggle for the re-establishment of a Europe of sovereign nations.
What the forces of democracy, freedom, and human rights ultimately want is a continuation of the migrant crisis of 2015; the establishment of “safe and orderly” migration of millions of non-European people into Europe until the European people themselves drown within the borders of their own countries. Anyone who still has the audacity to claim the social-engineering war the EU, in cooperation with the UN, has waged against its own people is nothing more than a sinister conspiracy theory can, at this point, be neither trusted nor endorsed.
That the center-right European People’s Party, made up of so-called conservatives and Christian democrats, takes umbrage with Orbán’s rejection of immigration or defense of Christian culture should make us all pause for a moment. That this same European People’s Party adamantly encourages and supports the continued effort of importing millions of non-European people into Europe bleeds out past the oxymoronic into the realm of evil.
So which side will give? The coming months should provide the answer. Be prepared for both possibilities. In the meantime, get ready for the fireworks. It will likely be quite a show.
While the British people have had to endure the nauseating rollercoaster nightmare Brexit has become, Hungarians are currently bracing themselves for the possibility of turbulence in the near future.
A few days ago, the European People’s Party suspended Fidesz, the Hungarian ruling party, from its ranks as retaliation for Orbán’s alleged illiberalism, flagrant flouting of “European values”, and staunch anti-mass migration stance. This latest rebuke of Orbán specifically and Hungary in general follows hard on the heels of the EU’s triggering of Article 7 proceedings against the country in September, 2018.
Hungary’s appearance of conflict has now met the European Union’s appearance of force. Anyone who understands the secret rules of engagement knows compromise under such circumstances is impossible, as the following quotes demonstrate,
“We cannot compromise on democracy, rule of law, freedom of press, academic freedom or minorities rights. And anti-EU rhetoric is unacceptable. The divergences between EPP and Fidesz must cease,” Joseph Daul, the president of that coalition (the European People’s Party) said Wednesday.
A Hungarian official offered the following prior to the EPP vote,
A Hungarian government official stressed before the vote to suspend the party that they would “under no circumstances be able to compromise on fundamental issues such as the defense of Christian culture or the rejection of immigration.”
With compromise seemingly out of the question, something must give. In my opinion, whatever “gives” will determine not only Hungary’s fate, but the long-term feasibility of the European Union as whole.
What are the stakes? Well, as the quote above demonstrates, on the one side you have the EU’s Babylonian vision of Europe - the establishment of a homogenized, bureaucratic, totalitarian state controlled under the banners of my favorite value delusions: freedom, democracy, and human rights. On the other side you have the struggle for the re-establishment of a Europe of sovereign nations.
What the forces of democracy, freedom, and human rights ultimately want is a continuation of the migrant crisis of 2015; the establishment of “safe and orderly” migration of millions of non-European people into Europe until the European people themselves drown within the borders of their own countries. Anyone who still has the audacity to claim the social-engineering war the EU, in cooperation with the UN, has waged against its own people is nothing more than a sinister conspiracy theory can, at this point, be neither trusted nor endorsed.
That the center-right European People’s Party, made up of so-called conservatives and Christian democrats, takes umbrage with Orbán’s rejection of immigration or defense of Christian culture should make us all pause for a moment. That this same European People’s Party adamantly encourages and supports the continued effort of importing millions of non-European people into Europe bleeds out past the oxymoronic into the realm of evil.
So which side will give? The coming months should provide the answer. Be prepared for both possibilities. In the meantime, get ready for the fireworks. It will likely be quite a show.
