Hungary not to support sanctions against Poland

1 Comment

1. Sander Driessen says:

   17/10/2018 at 17:31

   Embrase your friends and support each other. That is what good friendship means! From the
   From the Czech Republic there too is support from an unexpected side: Left socialist Jan Keller wrote the following:
   I am a Czech Social Democrat and a member of the European Parliament. I am one of the few left-wing politicians who is certainly not applauded by the mass immigration and multicultural policy of the EU. His focus, however, is not on the danger of Islam and the increasing crime, but on the social security that is nowhere in Europe calculated for the arrival of millions of hopeless migrants, with the result that the living conditions of both indigenous and immigrant citizens threaten to deteriorate sharply. Keller points to e.g. France which, after WW II, attracted large numbers of guest workers in order to maintain the high economic growth. The French themselves preferred to do the better-paid work in the tertiary sector while the less or less educated guest workers received low-paid jobs. The same was true for the situation in the Netherlands and other Western European countries. This system changed from the 1970s. The migrant workers no longer came temporarily, after having earned enough money to return to their home countries, but now also took their families and families to stay here. At the same time, the global economic conditions were changing, so that the prospects for employment deteriorated sharply, partly because many were barely able to speak the language of the host country. The Western elite therefore devised a new concept: ‘multiculti’. Suddenly the emphasis was no longer placed on the economic value of migrant workers, who had now become migrants, but on their ‘cultural contribution’ to society. This new policy is an example of exploiting others based on a fantasy of virtue, according to Keller. ‘Those for whom the beautiful words about multiculti are meant see that this has done nothing to improve their destiny and now realize that their future looks bleak. In his home country of the Czech Republic, things went very differently. There were not massively guest workers brought in to perform low-paid work, partly because the country was behind the Iron Curtain. But even after the Fall of the Wall, the Czech Republic chose a different course and did not participate in the mass immigration and multiculti / Islamization policy. As a result, there are hardly any problems with people of immigrant origin in the former Eastern European country. The Social Democrat points to the claim of many of his leftist colleagues that it would be necessary for our economy to attract migrants so that social security will soon be affordable. This is controversial, because in a new country low-skilled migrants are hardly able to take care of themselves, let alone others. They will actually be an extra burden for our already overburdened social security. But if we include the best-educated migrants from poorer countries, the situation in those countries will deteriorate further. The result will be an even greater influx of unskilled migrants who want to escape their countries. These newcomers will in turn put even greater pressure on social security, instead of encouraging economic growth. Keller therefore wonders why we have the right to bring in highly skilled migrants to solve our own short-term problems, while increasing the problems in their home countries and, in the longer term, our own economy and jeopardize social security. After decades of mass immigration, in Western Europe and the Netherlands, we have indeed reached the stage where social security is gradually being stripped and scraped. Under these circumstances, the nature of multiculturalism has changed. It is now being used to put the low and middle classes under particularly intense psychological pressure, Keller continues. One form of this pressure is to compare the current migrant wave with the refugees from behind the Iron Curtain. However, that comparison does not end because the Eastern Europeans were not interested in obtaining a ‘multicultural status’. They wanted to integrate and adapt to the society that had taken them in. In short: the massive waves of migrants are statistically a much greater risk than an opportunity. They do not contribute to increasing prosperity. Our social security, which has been financed by and established for the populations of the (European) nation states, has simply never been designed to also take care of them. The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who – although not their fault – will not be able to support themselves for a very long time. If it then comes to mind that in the coming decades the EU and the UN will want to attract 300 million disadvantaged Africans to Europe, no one needs to be explained what this means for our future, yet apart from the crucial fact that Keller does not mention, that most of these migrants follow the discriminating and oppressive Islamic religion and want to impose it on society as a whole.