HUngarian FM: Hungary insists that the security of own citizens must be a priority
Hungary insists that when it comes to migration, the security of a country’s own citizens must be given priority, Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said on Wednesday.
During a debate at the European Parliament on Tuesday, it became clear that “Brussels and the United Nations want illegal migrants to come to Europe”, he told a press conference in Budapest. According to a planned resolution, migration will be presented as a human right and its positive effects will be emphasised, the minister added.
This goes against the interests of the Hungarian people, he said. “We continue to resolutely reject migration becoming recognised as a human right or migration as a positive trend.” Nor is migration the right response to challenges in the labour market, he insisted.
Hungary will resolve demographic and labour market challenges with the help of Hungarian people and Hungarian families, Szijjártó said.
“We want more Hungarian children and more Hungarian families instead of more migrants in Hungary. We love our country and will not hand it over to others,” Szijjártó said.
“No matter how many times [US billionaire] George Soros goes to Brussels and the issue of illegal migration is put on the agenda; no matter how many allies Soros has in Brussels, we will not back down. Illegal migrants will not come here,” he added.
Source: MTI
please make a donation here
Hot news
Opposition Momentum: Without us, we can’t find our way back to Europe
Warning: Traffic restrictions in Budapest today due to mass event
Hungarian FM Szijjártó in important talks with head of Zelensky’s office
Uber in Hungary: Secures dispatching license and launches in Budapest with game-changing partnership!
PM Orbán, President Sulyok meet Swiss president
What happened today in Hungary? – 19 April, 2024
3 Comments
The EU, the UN and their cohorts, like the political correct media are very busy transforming Europe in a open garbage dump.
With all means they try to force the European population to accept the, as they call them “refugees”, including the micro and large criminality.
When the leaders of a country are protecting their population against that sheer madness its called racism. Better live in a “racist” country then in a nation where crime and terrorism are part of daily life.
Nicely put C.J.
Endorse Endorse !! Practical sovereign commonsense !!
John.H. Morton.
Why was EU and NATO established? Here is the real documentation: It was exactly 67 years ago, the ECSC was established – the forerunner of the current European Union. The true reason for founding is still glossed over with a sugary discourse about ‘peace’. In discussions about the European Union (EU) it is always stated at some point that it would ultimately all be about ‘peace’. Because of the existence of sovereign nation states, Europe would have been thrown into two disastrous wars that then led the entire world to the abyss; and only by replacing nation-states and merging their sovereignty into a supranational organization would repetition have failed since 1945. The truth is completely different. The European project was not started for ‘peace’. First of all, there was peace for five years when it was decided in 1950 to set up the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). But in fact none of the protagonists were actually engaged in ‘reconciliation’ or ‘fraternization’. The decisive steps towards European unification were made in connection with the incipient Cold War. The goal of the newly created supranational organization was forging a military, political and economic bloc under uniform and post-democratic governance, so that resistance could be offered to the Soviet Union. Do not forget that the strategic position of Russia in 1945 was stronger than it had been at any time since Napoleon’s defeat in 1814 and the entry of Tsar Alexander I in Paris. The West had to formulate an answer to this geopolitical and ideological threat. Since nobody could foresee at that moment that it would ultimately be a ‘cold’ (instead of a ‘warm’) war, preparations were made for a military meeting with the former ally. The United States in particular was determined to do so through a Europe that was united militarily, politically and economically. The first attempt to achieve this went through the so-called ‘Marshall Plan’ from 1947. As a condition for the offered reconstruction funds, the European countries had to agree to abandon sovereignty through economic integration. The plan was piloted by the US Congress as an essential measure to stop the Soviet threat – anti-communism was much more relevant to Americans than the humanitarian aspects that the Marshall Plan is known for today. [2] This geopolitical agenda also explains why the Marshall Plan was received so hostile by the Soviet Union. The Russian Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, (Mr. Cocktail) after the Tripartite conference in Great Britain, France and the USSR in Paris on 2 July 1947, warned the states that wanted to accept the Marshall Aid that they would be ‘put under guardianship’ and lose their former economic and national independence. [2] As is well known, the communists took over the power of neutral Czechoslovakia more than half a year later (in February 1948). The Cold War was now really steaming and in response, Winston Churchill led Congress of The Hague in May 1948 (which would culminate in the London Convention) where the Council of Europe was founded: an intergovernmental organization that cooperation between sovereign states. This was a disappointment for the Americans. The Franco-German reconciliation, which here under the leadership of Churchill began to grow into a pan-European movement for peace and good neighborliness, did not resemble the administrative top-down structure that was necessary to be able to conduct a war centrally. Indeed: via the Council of Europe you could not possibly provoke or control a military or economic conflict, and when the Americans realized that Churchill did not add any of their plans, they decided to set up a new initiative. In the summer of 1948 they set up an organization called The American Committee on United Europe (ACUE). Apparently it was an innocent non-profit organization, but the leading figures behind it were without exception high CIA or former OSS employees: the chairman became William Donovan, ex-head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, a forerunner of the CIA ); the vice-chairman became Allen Dulles, active during the war in the American secret service and in 1953 he was appointed successor to his brother John Foster Dulles as head of the CIA; and the director’s position was forgiven to Thomas W. Braden, also from the OSS and from 1950 working at the CIA. The aim of the ACUE was to provide secret support and direction to far-reaching European integration than the intergovernmental cooperation that Churchill was managing. Almost immediately after the establishment of the ACUE, the ‘European Movement’ was founded on 26 October 1948. John McCloy, a senior American diplomat in occupied Germany, and Robert Murphy, US ambassador to Belgium, gave their support – and the ACUE provided funding. [3] Since the European Movement did not receive any serious funding, this American money was crucial in those first years (the European Movement was thus a classic example of a cover-up organization, as many have been set up in Central and Eastern Europe for the past twenty-five years).
Europe: seemingly idealistic think tanks that in fact just represent American geopolitics). [4] The first European Community, the ECSC, was announced on 9 May 1950 (one year and four days after the establishment of the Council of Europe). The organization provided for the establishment of a central decision-making body, a kind of Politburo, that would control the production of coal and steel – the primary means of production for warfare – the so-called ‘High Authority’ (the direct forerunner of the current European Commission). And indeed: in its vertical set-up with a central authority that not only controlled the permitted production, but also the yield, the price and the application of (in this case) coal and steel, the ECSC was an outright copy of the politico-economic board of the USSR. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the European project originally had nothing to do with ‘free market’ or ‘free trade’ (as one later went on to argue erroneously). Nor is it exaggerating to say that there was a conspiracy in those early years. Jean Monnet, the author of the Schuman Declaration, later announced that only nine (!) people knew about the plans before Schuman announced them. [5] Members of the French parliament, French ministries, intended partners, even the producers of coal and steel – literally everyone who would suffer the consequences of this – was left in ignorance until the last minute, undoubtedly for fear of contradiction. The Benelux and Italy were not informed until 8 May 1950, during a secret meeting in Paris, of which even all documents were destroyed. [6] The German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was only informed in the morning of 9 May, a few hours (!) Before issuing the declaration. As rightly noted at that time, it was the intention to bring about a ‘psychological shock’ and create a fait accompli. [7] The idea that the first European Community originated from pan-European sentiment or even from consultation is therefore a lie. [8] This mystery would also remain characteristic for all other key moments of the European project. It reflects the non-democratic, even anti-democratic character of the whole enterprise, which in the first instance was mainly led by former members of underground resistance movements and secret service personnel; and which was later applauded by Maoists, mafiosis politicians and multinationals. The events followed each other quickly. Despite the fact that the United Kingdom was the largest producer of coal and steel, that country was kept out of the ECSC – mainly because of the British aversion to supranational authority. The US then neutralized the influence of Churchill by dismissing his son-in-law, Duncan Sandys, as head of the European movement. Two months after the Schuman Declaration, Sandys was replaced by Paul-Henri Spaak, an arch federalist who had been approached a year earlier by the US to become Director-General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation in Europe (OECD). Spaak would later act as Secretary General of NATO. Joseph Retinger, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, told Sandys that he should resign because ‘our American friends do not agree with your approach’. [9] As if he were operating the country (which was of course almost the same), ACUE director Thomas Braden told General Bedell Smith [10] that it was the task of the new Belgian cabinet (led by Georges-Louis Rebattet, who led the French resistance from 1943 and was an expert in secret operations) to fabricate support for European federalism by ‘launching large-scale propaganda campaigns in all European countries.’ [11] Specific propaganda directed against the USSR indeed played a major role in the new acts of war for which the European communities were founded. This is of crucial importance because it explains how the nonsensical ‘peace story’ originated. The Cominform had decided at its very first congress in 1947 that the concept of ‘peace’ would be central to communist propaganda. [12] The Soviet Union presented itself more and more clearly as a champion of peace towards a Western Europe that seemed to stand for division and animosity. This presentation of affairs was enthusiastically deducted worldwide. From April 20, 1949, for example, the so-called ‘Peace Congress’ was held in Paris (funded by the USSR and its affiliated parties). Two thousand communist delegates from seventy different countries participated, and it was (entirely in Soviet style) concluded with a mass meeting in a football stadium. The ‘inclusive’ communist peace story, for example, attracted more and more supporters in the Europe that had just divided Germany. The West was lagging behind and had to find a way to fight the communists. This is exactly what Schuman told Acheson during their meeting in Paris on May 8, 1950, the day before the statement: ‘We must rebel against the powerful communist peace propaganda, because it begins to become dangerously successful in non-communist countries’. 13] It explains why the Schuman Declaration starts with a story about ‘world peace’ and why the ECSC, although designed for warfare, has since always been presented as an organization to promote peace: to undermine the appeal of the USSR. The next step was the complete military integration of Western Europe. The Korean War had begun since the summer of 1950. With the support of the Soviet Union, North Korea had invaded South Korea. The Americans feared the same scenario between East and West Germany. The vast majority of American troops had left Europe since 1945 – the number of troops had diminished with dizzying speed and after the establishment of NATO in 1949, the number had shrunk even further to less than 100,000. Suddenly, Western Europe seemed very vulnerable: and the only solution that Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State, saw was to place again (and this time permanently) substantial troops in Western Europe to become part of a new, overarching defense system ‘- Acheson described this as’ a step we have never taken in our history’ – and to combine this with the rearmament of Germany. In a conversation that Acheson conducted with the British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin in September 1950, and the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, he demanded an immediate response from his French and British colleagues. Robert Schuman reacted with his characteristic ambiguity. He told Acheson that he could agree to the rearmament of Germany, but that the plan should remain a secret, because: ‘An announcement of the decision in this case (to set up German army units) will cause enormous problems in France’. [15] Schuman’s solution was simple: to camouflage the rearmament of Germany as a new ‘European’ army to be set up. On October 8, 1950, less than one month later, French Prime Minister René Pleven presented his proposal for the European Defense Community to the Council of Ministers – Plan Pleven. And when Pleven presented this to the French National Assembly on October 24, 1950, he stated in no uncertain terms that the European Defense Community was meant to be able to fight during the Cold War and to involve neutral West Germany in NATO. He clarified his arguments with pure Atlantic muscle language: The member states (of NATO) have recognized the need to defend the Atlantic community as far as possible towards the East against any form of aggression. They have agreed that all their troops must be placed under the central control of a single supreme command. The army of a United Europe, made up of soldiers from different European countries, must establish a complete fusion of human and material capital that can thus be placed under one central European political and military power. [16] In other words: less than six months after the decision to combine the production of coal and steel (the raw materials for warfare), the bundling of the armies of the ECSC countries was announced. Coincidence? Of course not. The supranational structure of the ECSC was designed from the outset to pave the way. Eventually the French parliament stopped the formation of such a European army (while the Marseillaise was spontaneously deployed). As a result, the European Defense Community has gradually fallen into oblivion. But to understand the current European Union, it is essential to keep its origins clear: it has always been focused on arming Western Europe, bringing it under central authority and preparing it for war. As we see today in the proposals for a European border police and European foreign policy, the decision to set up an apparently innocent ‘internal market’ and to further European integration through ‘trade’ and ‘open borders’, finally, they ended up exactly the same as they wanted to achieve in all openness – namely: European political and military unification. The context of the Atlantic alliance is still decisive, and the Americans are still pushing us in that direction.
References:
George Kennan’s famous Long Telegram, in which he urged the US to fight the Soviet Union, had just been drawn up a year earlier (on February 22, 1946). Washington acted on the basis of this text.
Department of State (Ed.), A Decade or American Foreign Policy, Basic Documents 1941-1949. Washington: Department of State Printing Office, 1985. p. 969 (ISBN 0403000084) p. 807-809.
Both McCloy and Murphy had access to the so-called counterpart funds of the Marshall Plan. For more information on counterpart funds and their use for Cold War propaganda, see: Armin GRÜNBACHER, Cold-War Economics: the use of Marshall Plan Counterpart Funds in Germany 1948-1960, Central European History 45 (2012) pp. 697-716.
In the period from 1948 to 1960, she invested more than 3 million dollars in various European groups to exert influence during the various stages of European unification, from the announcement of the Schuman plan on 9 May 1950 up to and including the establishment of the EEG in 1957/1958. Richard J. ALDRICH, OSS, CIA and European Unity: the American Committee on United Europe, 1948 – 1960, Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 1 (March 1997), pp. 184 – 227.
Jean Monnet, Mémoires, (Paris: Fayard, 1976), see http://www.cvce.eu, Extraite de mémoires de Jean Monnet sur le secret entourant le projet français de Communauté européenne du charbon et de l’acier.
La discretion nécessaire, undated document without source, http://www.cvce.eu.
French plan caused psychological shock, Het Parool, 13 May 1950, p. 3.
Interestingly, one non-European was aware of Schuman’s secret: Dean Acheson. The US Secretary of State visited Paris on 8 May 1950 and immediately expressed his support when Schuman told him his plans. The Americans therefore knew more about the ECSC than the Germans.
Letter from Retinger to Sandys, 31 March 1950, quote from Aldrich, OSS, CIA and European Unity, p. 197: ‘Our American friends do not agree with your tactics.’
General Bedell Smith was director of the CIA from 1950 to 1953.
Confidential Memorandum from Thomas Braden to Walter Bedell Smith, June 27, 1950. Aldrich, p.198: ‘the initiation of major propaganda campaigns in all European countries.’
Gerhard Wettig, Stalin and the Cold War in Europe, The Emergence and Development of East-West Conflict 1939 – 1953 (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008), p. 197.
US State Department, Office of the Historian, Foreign Relations of the United States, Western Europe, Volume III, p. 1008 (Telegram from the Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State, Paris, May 8, 1950).
The talks began on September 12, 1950 and they were, as a historian described them, of ‘extraordinary importance’: Marc Trachtnberg and Christopher Gehrz, America, Europe, and German Rearmament, August-September 1950: A Critique of a Myth, Journal of European Integration History, Vol. 6, No. 2, December 2000. Trachtenberg reuses this text in books such as The Cold War and After (2012) and Between Empire and Alliance (2003). The citations can be found in: US State Department, Office of the Historian, Foreign Relations of the United States, Western Europe, Volume III, p. 1208 (Second Meeting of Foreign Ministers, September 13, 1950), United States Delegation Minutes, First Meeting of Foreign Ministers, New York, Waldorf Astoria, September 12, 1950, 3 pm, in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Western Europe, Volume III, p. 1192. Ultimately, the new policy led to an explosive increase in the number of military personnel present in Europe. By the time West Germany joined NATO in 1955, there were 350,000 US military personnel in Europe. US Military Presence in Europe, 1945 – 2016, document published by the US European Command, 26 May 2016, http://www.eucom.mil/doc/35220/u-s-forces-in-europe
Minutes of a French, British and United States Foreign Ministers and Their High Commissioners for Germany, Foreign Relations of the United States 1950, Volume III, p. 299 ‘The cause of change in France’ (‘the establishment of German army units’).
The original quote: ‘The associated nations (or NATO) have recognized the need to defend the Atlantic community against any possible aggression, as far as possible. They have agreed that all those forces, irrespective of their nationality, should be the Commander-in-Chief. The army of a united Europe, whether or not so many European countries, must, so far as is possible, achieve a complete fusion of the human and material elements that make up a single European political and military authority’.
It is always good to have a clear picture what is going on in this world where no fair games exists. The only thing Brussels is doing now is attacking Hungary and Poland, They have to walk in-line with the real dictators!