Archive for the ‘Central Europe’ category

Central Europe and the U.S.: The New Alliance

November 12, 2017

Central Europe and the U.S.: The New Alliance, Gatestone Institute, Drieu Godefridi, November 12, 2017

The US president may be an arch-villain in Western Europe, but in Central Europe, he is a superhero. For years, Central European countries have respectfully disagreed with the Green millenarianism of the EU. Still catching up after 50 years of communism, they do not have the financial means for the “energy transition”. They see no rational reason to exchange their cheap electricity for the most expensive electricity on Earth, with no measurable impact whatsoever on “climate”. Before Trump, they felt alone, and weak in front of the economic (and moral) supremacy of Germany. Now, they know they are not alone.

************************************

Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized that multiculturalism has failed. All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young European Muslims went to Syria to join ISIS. And yet, it is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path.

The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a “refugee” after his asylum request has been rejected.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC. Yet, in the name of this “science”, European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in every sphere of human activity.

On immigration, on sustainable development and on many other subjects, the convergence between the United States and Central Europe is now as evident as the new divide between Western Europe and Central Europe.

The European mindset is shifting. Twenty-three of the 28 governments of the European Union now have parliamentarian majorities on the center-right of the political spectrum. Everywhere in Europe, the “left” is on the run.

This is particularly true in Central Europe. The soon-to-be Austrian Prime Minister Sebastian Kurz won the election on an anti-immigration platform and is on the verge of forming a government with the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) which owes its own success to the same topic.

In the Czech Republic, political parties on the right now hold 157 of the 200 seats in the Parliament and tycoon Andrej Babis­ ­— “the Czech Trump” — is set to be the next prime minister.

All in all, the “Visegrad Group” peoples — Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Slovaks — plus the Austrians, have voted in the most conservative governments we have seen in Europe for almost 30 years, since the fall of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.

Pictured: The Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group countries meet in Prague on December 3, 2015. From left to right: Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Poland’s Beata Szydło, Czech Republic’s Bohuslav Sobotka and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. (Image source: Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland)

These people and parties have much more in common — in terms of values, priorities,Weltanschauung — with the American Right than with the milder Western-European right. To state, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has repeatedly, that people in Central Europe do not want Muslim refugees because they do not want their cities to look like Brussels, Paris or London, is Trumpian, and in no way EU-compatible.

If we go to the bones of the contention, we see that these differing perspectives between Western Europe and Central Europe are no mere trifles, temporary divergences in wait of the next synthesis. They are existential. The world view of Central Europe looks increasingly irreconcilable with that of Western Europe and the EU. Let us focus on just two matters: immigration and environmentalism.

The political elites of Western Europe have not only fully embraced the concept of “no borders”; they would also dub any form of dissent as ignorance, discrimination or racism. Merkel herself has recognized that multiculturalism has failed . All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young Muslim Europeans have departed for Syria to join ISIS. And yet, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin.

Bearing in mind that under EU law — the Dublin Regulation — these countries have a legal obligation to welcome their “quota” of refugees, who are overwhelmingly Muslims coming via Greece and Italy, you can understand that Europe, that is the EU, has a real problem. It is also worthwhile to note that the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee has just adopted a draft EU regulation to augment this obligation, providing that the refugees should be distributed throughout the whole of the EU immediately following their arrival on EU soil.

The more “moderate” European Commission has proposed to streamline and supplement the current rules with a corrective allocation mechanism:

“This mechanism would be triggered automatically were a Member State to be faced with disproportionate numbers of asylum-seekers. If a Member State decided not to accept the allocation of asylum-seekers from a Member State under pressure, a ‘solidarity contribution’ of €250 000 per applicant would have to be made instead.”

€250 000 per applicant! Let us say should Poland refuse a mere 1000 refugees, the penalty would be a staggering 250 million euros (which may come as a surprise since the official ideology prevalent in the EU is that refugees are of benefit to the economy).

Of course, everybody agrees that “asylum applications should be processed much quicker so those in need of protection get it sooner, while those with no right to asylum can be returned to their home country swifter,” in the words of MEP Cecilia Wikström. The plan is unfortunately of little consequence as the EU is living under the law of the infernal twins: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. They have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a “refugee” after his asylum request has been rejected: no collective deportation, no deportation if the country of origin does not want its national back, no deportation if the country of origin is not a nice democracy, no deportation pending the appeal, no deportation if there is a medical condition, etc. All of these exceptions are reliant upon the “refugee” not seeing fit to destroy his or her own documents, as in that case he cannot be expelled at all.

If the US system of justice regarding immigration is, in Trump’s words, “a joke,” then the EU system is a monumental joke. “Deportation of quarter of a million failed asylum seekers is almost impossible,” said Horst Seehofer, Minister President of Bavaria of Bavaria and reluctant ally of Merkel in her last coalition.

“The question of deportation is a great illusion in Germany. It is almost impossible to send back the migrants once they are in the country. There are mass complaints against courts for deportation. In most cases, papers are missing and without papers, the country of origin does not take people back. In other cases, there are health certificates missing.”

Central Europe, on the other hand has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of taking its part in the extreme policies and grotesque failure of “open borders” and forced multiculturalism of Western Europe.

And that was before there was “sustainable development”. Self-anointed moral leader, Europe, has decided to become the global poster boy for green policy. The past belongs to Fossil fuels; the future belongs to renewable energy — from the wind and sun (“our sisters”, as Pope Francis wrote in his encyclic Laudato si’). Energy transformation — essentially electric energy — has taken on gigantic proportions in Europe. Thanks to the Energiewende, in Germany the average family is now paying more than twice as much for its electricity (per kW/h) as in the US. France, the happy owner of an extraordinary nuclear production capacity, which for decades was its only substantial competitive advantage has decided to reduce the role of nuclear energy in its production of electricity from 75% to 50%, under the guidance of Minister Nicolas Hulot (by education photographer and beach guardian).

There is also the exemplary instance of Belgium. Belgium’s federal government has just decided to close all its seven nuclear reactors by 2025. Eight years! The beauty of it is that nobody knows, at this stage, how Belgium is going to replace its nuclear reactors. There seem to be two options: building gas plants or blotting Belgium’s land and sea with wind turbines. The first option is anathema to the Greens and the Left in general, as Belgium would then be emitting more CO2than now. Or, second, the wind option, which would mean that in ten years Belgian electricity will be at least twice as expensive as now. Millions would be condemned to energy poverty, meaning they would have to live partly in cold and darkness, as is already the situation in Germany.

The whole concept of “energy transition” is based on the science of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states in report after report that the Earth is warming because of the human emission of CO2. European politicians regard the IPCC as a scientific body, and the IPCC defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC.

Yet, when the IPCC publishes a report, it is in Europe as if Science had spoken. In the name of this “science”, European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in each and every sphere of human activity. Moreover, they stipulated in the 2015 the Paris Accord, that from then on, the West would also finance the “energy transition” of the rest of the world, via the “Green Fund”: intending to donate $100 billion per year, from the Western taxpayer to whole world (including China).

US President Donald Trump said on June 1st that enough was enough. Europeans want to build International Socialism in the name of Science? Very well, but no thank you, we are not interested. In Europe, this decision caused the vilification of Trump as archvillian (until then he had been regarded by the glitterati of the EU as nothing more than a buffoon). It is now common in the highest spheres of European politics publicly to insult the US president: “He is a climate terrorist. Millions of people will die because of such behavior”, wrote the Belgian expert Damien Ernst on October 31, after President Trump welcomed the increase in US coal production.

The US president may be an arch-villain in Western Europe, but in Central Europe, he is a superhero. For years, Central European countries have respectfully disagreed with the Green millenarianism of the EU. Still catching up after 50 years of communism, they do not have the financial means for the “energy transition”. They see no rational reason to exchange their cheap electricity for the most expensive electricity on Earth, with no measurable impact whatsoever on “climate”. Before Trump, they felt alone, and weak in front of the economic (and moral) supremacy of Germany. Now, they know they are not alone.

Of course, the European press still considers Trump to be a cosmic anomaly. They hope that a post-Trump America will come back to the greatest embezzlement in the history of mankind — the Paris Accord, in which Western countries transfer vast amounts of their taxpayers’ wealth to poorer countries in exchange for promises that they will supposedly address their carbon-emission problems in 25 years. This is wishful thinking. Climate and energy are probably the only subjects on which Trump and the Republicans agreed from the beginning. The exit of the Paris Accord is not the isolated act of an unbalanced person, it is only one of the many closely aligned rulings, nominations and deregulation making a moderate energy policy which does not demonize fossil fuels and is open to “renewable” (intermittent) energies as long as they are economical. If the trend persists, in 10 years’ time the electricity in countries such as Germany and Belgium will be at least four times as expensive as in the US. And all, ironically, in the name of “sustainable development”. No ideologically-based “science” could survive such realities; it is only a question of time.

On mass-migration, environmentalism as on many other subjects — such as gender or family values — the divide between Western and Central Europe has deepened into an abyss, aggravated by the arrogance of EU bureaucrats convinced of their own moral superiority. The European Union is a “Union” no more, and the convergence between Central Europe and the US is a new and massive geopolitical fact.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l’Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.

Eastern Europe Chooses to Keep Western Civilization

July 7, 2017

Eastern Europe Chooses to Keep Western Civilization, Giulio Meotti, July 7, 2017

[I]t is critical that Eastern Europe continues to be a strong voice of dissent in the EU project. It might provide just the cultural confidence that European bureaucrats dramatically lack — at the peril of Europe itself.

**************************

“The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics” — Zoltan Balog, Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources.

It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

“Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether”. — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.

In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West’s battle against “radical Islamic terrorism” as the way to protect “our civilization and our way of life”. Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:

“Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

Trump’s question might find an answer in Eastern Europe, where he chose to deliver his powerful speech.

President Donald Trump gives a speech in Warsaw, Poland, in front of the monument commemorating the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against the Germans, on July 6, 2017. (Image source: The White House)

After an Islamist suicide-bomber murdered 22 concert-goers in Manchester, including two Poles, Poland’s prime minister, Beata Szydło, said that Poland would not be “blackmailed” into accepting thousands of refugees under the European Union’s quota system. She urged Polish lawmakers to safeguard the country and Europe from the scourges of Islamist terrorism and cultural suicide:

“Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day”.

A few days later, the European Union announced that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept migrants as the European Commission had decided under a 2015 scheme it created.

After Szydło’s speech, Zoltan Balog, Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources, declared:

“Islam is a major culture and religion, which we must respect, but Europe has a different identity, and it is clear that these two cultures are incapable of coexisting without conflict… The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics”.

That is why Viktor Orban has been labelled as “Europe’s enemy within” — because he spelled out what the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will never do: “Keeping Europe Christian“.

These speeches from Visegrad officials — the European group made up of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia — are just two examples of deep ideological divisions between Western European countries and those in Central- and Eastern Europe.

There has been a growing tendency of Visegrad leaders to depict Islam as a civilizational threat to Christian Europe. If, in Western Europe, Christianity has been dramatically cast aside by public opinion and severely restricted by EU official rules, in Eastern Europe new polls reveal that Christianity is as robust and patriotic as ever. That is why Trump called Poland “the faithful nation“. That is why US Catholic magazines are openly asking if there is a “Christian reawakening” in Eastern Europe. Slovakia approved a law to prevent Islam from becoming an official state religion.

These Central- and Eastern European countries know that Western Europe’s multiculturalism has been a recipe for terror attacks, for a start. As Ed West of The Spectator noted:

“Not all of Europe, of course. Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing”.

What is presumably “obvious” here is that Poland and Hungary are not hit by Islamic terror attacks because they have very few Muslims, while Belgium and UK it is the reverse. Europe would probably have been safer if it had followed Eastern Europe’s example.

Eastern Europe not only shows a greater understanding of Western culture than Western Europe does; these Eastern countries have also been far more generous to NATO, the bulwark of their independence and security. Culture and security go hand-in-hand: if you take your own culture and civilization seriously, you will be ready to defend them.

A brief look at the NATO’s members’ military spending as a percentage of GDP shows that Poland meets the 2% target, unlike all the Western European countries. Only five of NATO’s 28 members — the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. — meet the 2% target. Where is France? And Belgium? And Germany? And The Netherlands?

“Unlike most of its NATO and European peers,” Agnia Grigas, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, explained, “Poland has for the past two decades consistently viewed defense as a priority issue, and as a result, has been slowly but steadily emerging as the bedrock of European security”. Poland — unlike Belgium, Italy and other European countries — is not a “free rider” but a trustworthy partner to its US ally. Poland showed loyal support to the United States both in Afghanistan and Iraq, where its troops fought the Taliban and helped to topple Saddam Hussein.

It is no coincidence that President Trump selected Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

“The West will continue to have the military edge for a good time to come, but possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether”, wrote William Kilpatrick, a professor at Boston College. “The West is strong militarily, but weak ideologically. It lacks civilizational confidence”.

That is why it is critical that Eastern Europe continues to be a strong voice of dissent in the EU project. It might provide just the cultural confidence that European bureaucrats dramatically lack — at the peril of Europe itself.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Austrian Troops at the Brenner Pass?

July 4, 2017

Austrian Troops at the Brenner Pass? PJ MediaMichael Walsh, July 4, 2017

(Please see also Europe’s Migrant Crisis: Views from Central Europe. –DM)

(Photo by David Speier/NurPhoto)

[A]s Italy, France and parts of Germany continue to morph into a third-world slum, the countries of central and eastern Europe have had enough of cultural diversity.

******************************

The ongoing European disaster euphemistically known as the “migrant” crisis has just taken a turn for the worse — or for the better, depending on your point of view:

Italy has summoned Austria’s ambassador after the government in Vienna announced it was ready to deploy border troops to block any migrant influx. Austrian Defence Minister Hans Peter Doskozil told Kronen Zeitung daily that troops could go to the Brenner Pass. He said four Pandur armoured personnel carriers had been sent to the Tyrol region and 750 troops were on standby.

Austria has border checks with Hungary and Slovenia. But elsewhere it adheres to the EU open borders system.

The “open borders” system is also known as the Schengen agreement, which overlaps but is not contiguous with, the European Union.

Mr Doskozil said a military deployment at the busy Alpine pass, on the Italian border, would be “indispensable if the influx into Italy [across the Mediterranean] does not diminish.” Later Italy’s foreign ministry said it had summoned Austrian Ambassador Rene Pollitzer “following the Austrian government’s statement about deploying troops to the Brenner (pass)”.

People-smuggling gangs have been exploiting the violence and chaos in Libya. The shortest crossing from Libya to Italy is only about 460km (290 miles).

Which is why Libya was a Roman colony two thousand years ago. But whereas the Romans brought civilization and Christianity to North Africa, north- and sub-Saharan Africa are bringing chaos along with them on the return trip across the Mediterranean. But as Italy, France and parts of Germany continue to morph into a third-world slum, the countries of central and eastern Europe have had enough of cultural diversity.

The Brenner Pass is now seen as a potential migration hotspot, as the influx to Italy so far this year is higher than last year. Nearly 85,000 migrants and refugees arrived in Italy in the first half of this year, across the Mediterranean. The UN refugee agency UNHCR says that is about 20% more than in the first half of 2016.

So far 101,000 migrants have entered Europe in 2017 via the Mediterranean and according to the latest figures, 2,247 people have died or are missing at sea.

The Italians, who essentially provide free ferry and naval escort service for any Libyan who steps a toe into the waters off Tripoli or Tobruk, are finally threatening to close their ports and impound the so-called “rescue” agencies’ ships. Rescue from what is the question nobody ever asks, of course, because they don’t want to know the answer.

Europe’s Migrant Crisis: Views from Central Europe

July 2, 2017

Europe’s Migrant Crisis: Views from Central Europe, Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, July 2, 2017

(Please see also, European Union Rattled by Trump’s Visit to Right Wing, Anti-Migrant Poland. — DM)

Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia. In addition, hundreds of migrants who have been relocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which rank among the poorest EU countries, have since fled to Germany and other wealthier countries in the bloc.

“It needs to be said clearly and directly: This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions.” — Poland’s Prime Minister Beata Szydło.

“I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. That is a historical experience for us.” — Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, referring to Hungary’s occupation by the Ottoman Empire from 1541 to 1699.

The European Union has initiated legal action against the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland for failing to comply with a controversial order to take in thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The so-called infringement procedure, which authorizes the European Commission, the powerful executive arm of the European Union, to sue member states that are considered to be in breach of their obligations under EU law, could lead to massive financial penalties.

The dispute dates back to September 2015, when, at the height of Europe’s migration crisis, EU member states narrowly voted to relocate 120,000 “refugees” from Italy and Greece to other parts of the bloc. This number was in addition to a July 2015 plan to redistribute 40,000 migrants from Italy and Greece.

Of the 160,000 migrants to be “shared,” nine countries in Central and Eastern Europe were ordered to take in around 15,000 migrants. Although the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia voted against the agreement, they were still required to comply.

Since then, several Central European EU member states have vehemently refused to accept their assigned quotas of migrants. Poland, for example, has a quota of 6,182 migrants, not one of whom has been admitted. The Czech Republic has a quota of 2,691 migrants, of whom only 12 have been taken. Hungary has a quota of 1,294, none of whom have been admitted.

In the EU as a whole, so far only around 20,000 migrants have been relocated (6,896 from Italy and 13,973 from Greece), according to the EU’s latest relocation and resettlement report, published on June 13, 2017. Of the 28 EU member states, only Malta has taken in its full quota — 131 migrants.

Many so-called asylum seekers have refused to relocate to Central and Eastern Europe because the financial benefits there are not as generous as in France, Germany or Scandinavia. In addition, hundreds of migrants who have been relocated to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which rank among the poorest countries in the EU, have since fled to Germany and other wealthier countries in the bloc.

Meanwhile, the enforcers of European “unity” have sought to shame the Central European holdouts into compliance by appealing to nebulous concepts such as European “values” and “solidarity.” French President Emmanuel Macron, for example, recently warned:

“European countries that do not respect the rules should pay the full political consequences. There is a double betrayal. They decide to abandon EU principles, turn their back on Europe and have a cynical approach to the union which gives them money, without respecting its values.”

Leaders in Central and Eastern Europe have held their ground. In Poland, Prime Minister Beata Szydło said her country would not be blackmailed by European Union officials. In a speech to Parliament on May 24, two days after the jihadist attack in Manchester, England, in which a Polish couple was killed, she said:

“We are not going to take part in the madness of the Brussels elite…. Rise from your knees and from your lethargy or you will be crying over your children every day.

“If you cannot see this — if you cannot see that terrorism currently has the potential to hurt every country in Europe, and you think that Poland should not defend itself — you are going hand in hand with those who point this weapon against Europe, against all of us.

“It needs to be said clearly and directly: This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions. Do we want strong politicians who can see the danger and can fight against it efficiently?”

In a May 24 speech, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło said her country would not be blackmailed by European Union officials: “We are not going to take part in the madness of the Brussels elite… This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions.” (Illustrative image source: European Parliament/Flickr)

Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Błaszczak said that agreeing to European Union quotas would “certainly be worse” than any punishment meted out by Brussels:

“We must not forget the terror attacks that have taken place in Western Europe, and how — in the bigger EU countries — these are unfortunately now a fact of life. Remember, that the now very numerous Muslim communities in Western Europe started out as relatively small numbers….

“I tell my counterparts in Western Europe that the relocation strategy only intensifies illegal migration because traffickers get even more customers when would-be migrants hear that people delivered to Europe are being given refuge in EU nations other than Italy and Greece.”

Henryk Kowalczyk, a Polish member of parliament, said:

“Poland makes a contribution to the EU…. We are doing what the bloc says, what the treaties say. If the French president was thinking of refugees, well that issue is not mentioned in the treaties and when we joined the European Union we were not taking on that commitment.”

Poland’s European Affairs Minister Konrad Szymański added: “There is no conflict on values between the Commission and Poland — it is about how to interpret these values.”

In the Czech Republic, Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said that “given the deteriorating security situation in Europe and the non-functioning of the quota system, the Czech government will not participate in it.” He added: “We are ready to defend our position in the EU and the relevant judicial institutions.”

Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs Lubomír Zaorálek said that EU should focus on “economic and social convergence among EU countries, rather than attempts to distribute migrants with forced quotas.” He pointed out that in some Eastern European countries, “the most vulnerable inhabitants are often poorer than the incoming migrants themselves.”

Zaorálek added that “people who are coming have no real interest in being integrated” and want to live with their “partners from similar cultural, ethnic, religious backgrounds.” He said that people in Central and Eastern Europe do not want to “repeat the mistake of the Western countries” which have “neighborhoods full of thousands and thousands of people living in imperfect living conditions” and which are “very risky, not only during the night but also during the day.” He pointed out that “there are no suicide bombers among Ukrainians or Vietnamese,” two long-established communities in the Czech Republic.

In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico said that mass migration and forced multiculturalism would change the essence of his country:

“I think it is the duty of politicians to talk about these things very clearly and openly. I do not want to see a Muslim community in Slovakia. I do not want there to be several tens of thousands of Muslims who gradually begin to promote their ideology. We do not want to change the traditions of this country, which are built on the Christian tradition. It has been like this for centuries. Sovereignty and national pride must be part of our ruling coalition.”

Fico added that 95% of so-called refugees were actually economic migrants:

“We will not assist in this folly with arms opened wide with the notion that we will accept them all regardless of whether they are economic migrants or not. We must start telling the truth about migration.”

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has warned of the “explosive consequences” of a culture clash between Europe and migrants from the Muslim world:

“To understand what we must do, we need to grasp the true nature of the situation we are facing. Europe is not in the grip of a ‘refugee problem’ or a ‘refugee situation,’ but the European continent is threatened by an ever mounting wave of modern-era migration. Movement of people is taking place on an immense scale, and from a European perspective the number of potential future immigrants seems limitless.

“With each passing day we see that hundreds of thousands have been turning up and clamoring at our borders, and there are millions more intending to set out for Europe, driven by economic motives….

“We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation. Irresponsibility is the mark of every European politician who holds out the promise of a better life to immigrants and encourages them to leave everything behind and risk their lives in setting out for Europe. If Europe does not return to the path of common sense, it will find itself laid low in a battle for its fate….

“Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.”

Referring to Hungary’s occupation by the Ottoman Empire from 1541 to 1699, Orbán said:

“I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We do not like the consequences of having a large Muslim community that we see in other countries and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see. That is a historical experience for us.”