Jobbik President Gábor Vona delivered a lecture at Lomonosov Moscow State University

[Szegedist]

"Last week, I visited Moscow at the invitation of Prof. Alexander Dugin who asked me to deliver a lecture at Lomonosov Moscow State University, which titled "Russia and Europe".

Earlier, Prof. Dugin advised to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and now, he is the geo-political adviser of the Chairman of the Russian Parliament.

During my visit, I met several leading Russian politicians and discussed issues regarding Russian-Hungarian relations. I met the President of the Russian parliament's energy policy committee Ivan Dmitrievich Grashow and vice-President Vasily Tarasyuk, who is also the vice-President of the Russian-Hungarian Friendship Group. I also met several other state officials including Foreign Affairs Committee Vice-President Leonid Ivanovich Kalashnikov, two pro-government representatives, Yevgeny Fedorov and Anton Vasilyevich Romanov, as well as the Russian gas industry association's vice-President Alexei Anatolyevich Starikov.

The subject of discussion included energy and economic related issues relevant to bilateral relations, as well as the possibilities of increasing Hungarian exports to Russia and the crisis of the European Union.

After the meetings, I went to the Lomonosov State University Sociology Department and held a presentation, which attended about fifty students and professors. I can say without boasting that my lecture was a big success. I've received a lot of questions after the presentation, and a new invitation as well.

I consider my Moscow trip a major breakthrough because it became clear that the Russian politicians consider Jobbik as a partner. They told me that they read about Jobbik in the press, but because they know the nature of the media, they don't let themselves be influenced by them. My guests seek good relations with all political parties that enjoy the Hungarian people's trust and support including Jobbik. The main criteria for them is the party's foreign policy, they don't intend to interfere with internal matters. We made a major step forward again ...”

In his presentation, Vona called the U.S. a misformed European experiment and the European Union a treacherous organization. According to Vona, Russia is much more European than the former entities, because she preserves her tradition rather than worship money and mass culture. Earlier, the sick Europe conquered America to alleviate its problems, and now, it's America that is doing the same to ease its economic problems.

The party president emphasized that the countries of Europe shouldn't give up their national values and their history. The role of Russia today is to offset the Americanization of Europe.

The Eu's promises were lies, we haven't gained more freedom from joining the European Union instead, they took away our markets, our factories, and filled our store-shelves with western garbage said Vona.

Hungary will have to chose in a few years, will it stick with the EU, join the Eurasian Union or remain independent.

[Baluarte]

Wow, Jobbik just skyrocketed in my book.

Dugin is the Russian author that I follow the most. I had no idea he had been named by Putin as geopolitical advisor.

Cheers.

[Szegedist]

Interesting how he was invited to Russia, when he is practically persona non grata in the rest of Europe.

Even in Croatia, there was a big outrage when Jobbik visited the Hungarian minority party there.

[Baluarte]

Russia is the key player of Eurasianism, I've always said it. No wonder why they've been moving their pieces so perfectly the last few months, they have Dugin as a special advisor now.
The aim of the theory is to crack Atlanticism by pushing them out of Asia and weakening them in Europe and I believe that finds perfect compatibility with Jobbik's foreign policy.

They're not very fond of Turkey though. Very pro-Iranian.
In today's world, it's the best thing available.

[glass]

Interesting how he was invited to Russia, when he is practically persona non grata in the rest of Europe.
.

that is why

[glass]

Russia is the key player of Eurasianism,

Eurasianism is actually 20 century creation. Till then Russia was christian and european, but after 2 wars against whole Europe (Napoleon, Crimean war) and Berlin congress Russia started to look for some other identity. Basically eurasianism is result of bad relations with Europe. The worse relations the more fashionable eurasianism

[Szegedist]

The aim of the theory is to crack Atlanticism by pushing them out of Asia and weakening them in Europe and I believe that finds perfect compatibility with Jobbik's foreign policy.

I think this is one of the reasons.

Eurasianism is actually 20 century creation. Till then Russia was christian and european, but after 2 wars against whole Europe (Napoleon, Crimean war) and Berlin congress Russia started to look for some other identity. Basically eurasianism is result of bad relations with Europe. The worse relations the more fashionable eurasianism

Sounds familiar...

[Szegedist]

English text of the speech, I broke it up into paragraphs to make it easier to read...





Dear participants, dear friends,

First of all, allow me to thank for the invitation to this world-famous university. I thank Professor Alexandr Dugin for giving me the opportunity to tell you my thoughts. I can assure you without any exaggeration that this is a moment of key importance for me. The invitation said that I should present a lecture about the relationship of Russia and Europe. However, when we examine the relationship between Russia and Europe, we cannot avoid defining the role of the United States. Europe, Russia and America can only be understood in their interrelations. To define them in a nutshell, in a very simplified way but focussing on the essence, I must say that while the US is the deformed offspring of Europe and while the EU is the traitor of the continent, Russia is the one that preserves the real Europe and the European thought. Despite many problems and controversies, today Russia still represents Europe better than the so-called European Union. Unfortunately, the world was not invaded by the original European thought but by its distorted form: Americanism, which, as René Guénon would put it, means the rule of quantity, i.e. money and mass. The first question is: why did modern Europe betray itself? The story begins at the end of the Middle Ages, when Europe lost its way of organic development and has been at variance with itself since the modern age.

Modern Europe was nothing but anti-tradition, questioning basic values, and it should have collapsed almost within a few decades. The only way to avoid it was to start exploiting other parts of the world, sucking out their values. The first such part was America, which Europe populated by exterminating the natives and which then had African slaves build the country. Ironically enough, America, Europe's great quarry, separated from the old continent, stood on its own feet and took over Europe's role in the 20th century. Now it is America that exploits the rest of the world. To sum up: just as the capitalist model of modern Europe was dysfunctional and could only survive through colonisation, the current American capitalist model is also dysfunctional and can only operate by conducting a global exploitation.

The second question is: why is the US a deformed child? The process took place roughly at the same time with modern Europe's loss of path. No wonder this was the time of the so-called great explorations. Europe needed a quarry to prevent its collapse. From the 16th century, the foundations of the American society were laid by the misfits of Western Europe: adventurers, the miserable creatures of the budding unregulated capitalism, the uprooted and escaping groups of a ruined society, as well as the accompanying religious fanatics who had also been cast out. This controversial social cocktail created the United States and this genesis very clearly shows in the texture of the society there: the level of culture, the dominance of the economy, the decadence of society and the political elite's mission-conscious attitude, which is rooted in neo-protestantism.

It is a superpower without traditions and a past, which therefore cannot have a healthy image of the future, either. It would be interesting to analyse whether the USA, the prodigal son has an unconscious wish for revenge on Europe, the ungrateful father? Many people believe that the US and Europe are each other's allies and partners, but the fact is that Europe is only a servant in this relationship. Europe does what America orders. In fact, there is a hidden, invisible war going on between the two continents, and Europe is losing this war. By now, Europe has become a continent-sized member state of the USA, no wonder the issue of a free trade agreement between them emerges more and more times. You must be blind not to notice that the US is also behind the lengthy economic crisis of the EU. Because America is in crisis, too. A sagging dollar would cause enormous difficulties, therefore it is very important for America to prevent Europe and the Euro from getting stronger. America is counter-interested in a strong Europe. And Europe is gasping like a fish out of water, unable to do anything. Externally, Europe can neither resist America's economic pressure nor compete with Asia's efficiency, while internally it cannot solve its problems: negative demography, immigration, valuelessness, unemployment and the hostile, unsettled relations of national interests.

The next question is: what does the future hold for the Union? It is quite clear for everybody that the EU is dysfunctional. Public opinion says that this could only be solved by an intensified integration. In other words, they say we should create a United States in Europe as well, where the sovereignty and liberty of member states would be completely eliminated, but the community would at least become governable. In my opinion, this is nothing but taking a fundamental mistake to the extreme. Instead of looking for new ways, Europe continues to follow the bad old way. This could only end in disaster. I think that this might possibly be in the interest of the US, since devouring a weakened Europe and occupying its markets would be a great chance for America. In other words, history would repeat itself, but in the opposite direction this time. In the modern age, it was a sick Europe that invaded America in order to alleviate its own problems by exploiting it, now it will be a sick US that invades Europe to solve its own crisis. The free trade agreement, which is more and more often mentioned, is in fact this process disguised in nice words and economic terminology. In my opinion, the future of the EU does not lie in copying the American model and in complete self-denial, but in finding its own way. Any community that denies its own traditions shall inevitably fail. There is no way or future that could make up for the denial and disowning of our past. Europe's ancient roots reach back to Christian morals, Greek philosophy and Roman law. These are our common values, which each European nation adopted through their particular national character. The Italian added their vitality, the French added their aesthetics, the English added their puritanism, the German added their diligence, the Russian added their messianism. In the Middle Ages, we were one while our variances represented a value. In other words, differences do not diminish Europe, they complement it.

So if you think in European terms, you must preserve the ancient Greek and Roman traditions as well as the Medieval Christian values, maintain the unique values and characteristics of each nation and adjust all these to meet the challenges of our era. You must build such a Europe, such a community where everybody can add their forte to the common good, where all can fulfill their office, where everybody can get a chance for life, where the bigger fish doesn't eat the small fish, unlike in the EU now. And here comes the fourth question of my lecture: what is Russia's role in the future of Europe? As I mentioned before, Russia is not an opponent of Europe, unlike the way many Western Europeans would like to present it, but one of Europe's last chances. We do not need Russia to be enrolled in the EU, it would only make matters worse. It would benefit neither the EU nor Russia. We need Russia, which preserved much more of its own traditions and thus of the real Europe, to be able to counterbalance Americanisation. It should be able to do so in the cultural-spiritual, the economic and the political sphere as well. Of course, this does not mean that Russia should do to Europe what the US does. Russia's goal is not to exploit, invade and dominate Europe, but to find such allies there who are also against the global US dominance and partner with them to build up a new Europe. From the aspect of Central and Eastern Europe, where my homeland, Hungary belongs, all these issues are of vital importance. For us, joining the European Union did not only mean choosing a bad path like for other European countries, but even within this sick community we were given the worst role: that of a colony. Hungarian and other post-communist societies were deluded into believing that Brussels would bring freedom and wealth.

Freedom roughly means that you are free to do anything that is not forbidden by America and the global underlying power, while wealth was simply an utter lie. Nearly 10 years have passed since we joined the EU and looking back over so many years we can state that we were misled: they only needed Hungary to take away our markets, to destroy our factories and economy and to fill the store shelves with their own products. Hungary, which has excellent capabilities in agriculture and food industry, now eats Dutch cheese, Danish pork, Spanish vegetables and German sausages. Not to mention that while we did catch up with Western Europe in terms of prices, the salaries of workers are just a fraction of what a Western employee makes at the same company. To describe the situation in very dramatic terms, I must say that we became the slaves of a disintegrating, sick community. We are galley slaves on a sinking ship. Therefore Europe's future and its relationship with Russia and the other major powers matters a lot for Hungary. In my view, Germany, which is currently predominant in our region, will be joined by two major Eurasian powers, Russia and Turkey in the future. I think that the future of Central and Eastern Europe will be determined by Germany, Russia and Turkey. Therefore it is very important for these three countries to develop partnerships amongst each other as well as with the Central and Eastern European nations.

The thought of Eurasianism can play a very significant role in such relations, confronting Euro-Atlantism. I can even imagine that Hungary may have to decide in the foreseeable future whether to stay in the European Union, to choose the shaping Eurasian Union or try to remain independent by balancing between the two. There are arguments for and against all the three options. Hungary will have to consider these options and make the best decision. What I am certain of is that the first option can already be excluded. Euro-Atlantism is over, at least for us, and it is only a question of time for the politicians to acknowledge it. Either the road of independence or the Eurasian cooperation will be chosen by Hungary, our country will have to reconsider and improve its economic, energy-related, political and cultural relations with Russia. The most consistent representative of this idea currently is Jobbik - the party I lead and the party that is the second most popular political organisation in Hungary according to certain opinion polls. Finally, let me mention one more topic. As I already made it clear, I believe in Eurasian cooperation, and I believe that this cooperation must be based on such universal and traditional values that connect a traditional Europe with a traditional Asia. I also believe that we must find the appropriate social, political and economic system for such cooperation and it is of key importance. But I do not believe that making up a system is enough in itself for getting ahead.

I do not think that systems create cultures. I believe that cultures develop their own systems. In other words, it is not the form that creates the content, but the content creates its form. This means that we, who want to build a new world order that is more humane, truthful, traditional and harmonious than the current one, must focus on laying the foundations in our own lives to uplift the society, liberate people from the matrix of global capitalism and re-open our Earthly world for transcendent values. If we achieve that, if we make a move in this direction, if we create the content, the form will present itself almost automatically. A community that lives in the universal human tradition and is centred around it can make even the worst systems human, but a value-deprived, modernist and decadent society will corrupt even the best designed system into a filthy and brutal one. I wish that Russia and the Russians as well as Hungary and my nation, the Hungarians could be the first torches that show the light to the rest of the world on this path.

[Baluarte]

Holy hell, the most conceptually rich political speech I've read in.....years. Perhaps the best one in Europe since the early days of J.Marie Le Pen.

"the level of culture, the dominance of the economy, the decadence of society and the political elite's mission-conscious attitude, which is rooted in neo-protestantism." Epic jab

" I think that this might possibly be in the interest of the US, since devouring a weakened Europe and occupying its markets would be a great chance for America." Pretty much summed up the Transatlantic Free trade agreement.

"The thought of Eurasianism can play a very significant role in such relations, confronting Euro-Atlantism. I can even imagine that Hungary may have to decide in the foreseeable future whether to stay in the European Union, to choose the shaping Eurasian Union or try to remain independent by balancing between the two. "

Flawless identification of the blocs and a wise perspective



As usual my only beef with Vona is the whole Turkic issue, unnecessary, dangerous considering their structural pro-NATO position, and the impossibility to reconcile Iran (key piece of the Eurasian strategy) with Turkey.
And this is without even counting the clear conflict of interests in Transcaucasia, regarding Armenia.

But still, a breath of fresh air
The fact Atlanticism is finally addressed as core problem it's amazing. And even if they didn't bring it up this time, I know well their position regarding Zionism.


A true alternative to face Atlanto-Zionism

[Baluarte]

Husz, perhaps you'll see why I have little love for Protestantism ^.^