The translator includes this introductory note:
This is an eye-opening interview that Dr. Eva Barki gave to the Hungarian news site “Magyar Idok”. I find it very interesting, as it shows the European mindset on the whole migration mess, and why they have so much trouble dealing with it.
The translated interview:
Dr. Eva Maria Barki: Opinion terrorism in Austria
The Dublin III convention and the Schengen system are dead, and the refugee convention of Geneva should be scrapped — so declares the Viennese lawyer Dr. Eva Maria Barki to “Magyar Idok”. The specialist in the field of populations’ and refugees’ rights sees it as an urgent problem that at this time a deliberately planned and well-coordinated invasion is taking place, and that one may count on 950 million people coming to Europe between now until 2050.
Europe does not have a ready answer to this challenge. Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker only entertain opinions that are dictated by Washington. Mrs. Barki emphasizes that in Austria there is much evidence of opinion terrorism: it is forbidden to have an opinion against migration. Those who nevertheless do so seriously risk losing their job.
You were born in Austria, but maintain close contacts with Hungary. What is the origin of those close contacts?
My father was Hungarian. He died when I was only six months old. But I received a Hungarian education, even though I spoke German with my mother. As an only child of Hungarian descent, I was much interested in Hungarian history at school, and discussed the topic a lot with my history teachers. When I became a lawyer, I was the only one in Vienna who spoke Hungarian, and was therefore able to represent many of my countrymen juridically.
You are a specialist in the area of populations’ and refugees’ rights. During your participation in international forums and international organizations you often are against the mainstream and for Hungarian interests. Where does this passion come from?
I don’t just defend Hungarian interests, but mostly what is the truth. I also stand up for other populations.
You have focussed for decades on the migration question: who is according to your terminology a refugee, and who an economic migrant?
Wars, civil wars, and other war activities, armed conflicts and armed rival clan activities are no reasons for asylum. This only exists when there is individual persecution, meaning a case of individual political persecution. That is why, according to the refugee convention, not even 3% of the arriving migrants would qualify as refugees with the right to obtain long term residency. Besides that, it is utterly questionable that the majority of these people want to reach the richest countries of Europe only, when a true refugee, who fears for his life, should be happy to reside in any country in which he feels safe.
But in Europe there is Angela Merkel…
Regrettably, she is the undertaker of Europe. She purposefully invites migrants and destroys not only Germany, but also Europe.
How many migrants can we expect?
Every year there will arrive millions of people, the immigration wave has not seen its peak yet. According to Professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the Army-demographic Institute of the NAVO Defense College, 950 million immigrants will arrive by the year 2050, just from Africa and the Middle East.
No economy exists that can carry that. Who benefits from such an invasion?
It concerns a purposely well-prepared, well-coordinated action. The American military strategist Thomas Barnett, an advisor to a past American Secretary of Defense, wrote in his two books that Europe should absorb 1.5 million immigrants every year. According to him, this would create a society in which there would be no more differences between nations, cultures, religions and national identities, and where a large part of the population would have an IQ of 90 or below, capable of working but not capable of independent thought. The United States does not understand our societies, which have grown over time, our history, and especially not our culture and traditions, and totally does not understand how a well-organized society is supposed to function.
The countries with the former utmost important goal of immigration, such as the United States, the rich Gulf States and Australia, turn away — and rightly so — from unlimited immigration. How is it possible that anybody from those countries has the nerve to dictate what Europe, what Hungary should do?
One has to make clear to the governments that immigration — in addition to other factors — is one of the most important instruments that will destroy the European social system, and it will destroy Europe’s ability to defend itself at the same time.
What will happen to Europe?
It will become a bipolar continent, in which the Central European countries will play a major role. The Western European countries will, together with the United States, descend into chaos because of loss of values; the moral crisis seems to have reached a point already that seems irreversible. On top of that we have the economic and political crisis.
Is there a connection between migration and terrorism?
Yes, that is why it is a big problem that the European leaders — the German federal chancellor Angela Merkel and the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker — are operating under the unrealistic pretenses of false-humanitarian and false-solidarity, and are not protecting the citizens of the continent.
One can not call the Austrian Social Democratic chancellor Werner Faymann a squeaky-clean example of honest speech and consequences For example, he protested against the Hungarian border fence, but when Austria started protecting its borders, this fence was transformed into “a little gate with side-parts”.
The Austrian chancellor just repeats the mantra that Angela Merkel has told him to recite; the German federal chancellor and the president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker just regurgitate the dictates from Washington. And in American politics, the financial oligarchy and the weapons industry, with their lobbyists, still have a huge amount of influence.
Not only are the trained “soldiers” and terrorists that are coming with the stream of migrants to Europe a threat, but also those belonging to the second and third generation of migrants who live here as EU citizens. Whereas their fathers and grandfathers were content to live in peace and have work, have clean water coming out of a tap, a roof over their heads and food on the table, apparently their offspring do not see this as acceptable and do not want to integrate. Why would that be so?
They do not want to and cannot integrate. They belong to a totally different culture, they have a different mentality and different motivations.
But this works for almost everyone in Canada.
Canada is not confronted with the same volume and composition of migrants.
Is Jihad — with its goal of global domination — an intended part of the migration?
Yes, that is the case, especially in Syria.
In several European countries authorities knew already for many years who the terror suspects were who departed to Syria to participate in “bomb-making 101”, but nothing happened to take them out or liquidate them. How is that possible? Is that amateurism? Or do you think that is smart statesmanship?
The migration problem shows that this interpretation of the country’s laws have failed. The situation has already become uncontrollable. The authorities do not dare to combat the increasing criminality, and when they do, they are forbidden to make it public because of fears that it will spark open resistance. And when the victim turns to the courts for justice, he is told that one has to take into account their culture and habits. I am afraid that civil war will come — especially in countries such as Germany, France and Italy — if terror activity commences in various places. What will happen afterwards? A dictatorship, but we won’t be able to say if it is going to be a far right or far left dictatorship.
One has to expect huge people masses in the future, but how can we stop these?
The border fence is the right measure. The attraction will disappear when the inadequate 1990 Refugee Convention of Geneva is scrapped; that’s why it has to be done away with. Then the people smugglers won’t be able to promise their clients that they can claim asylum in Europe. And of course the outside borders of the EU need to be effectively protected by the army.
What do you think of the binding quotas? Slovakia and Hungary expect that the European Court will say no to Brussels’ dictate.
I am afraid that the European Court will decide against the interests of the member states, as has happened so many times before. In reality it is European policy that says that people from war zones have to be treated in the same way as political refugees; that is the problem. One has to make sure that that policy is thrown out.
When the migrants are assigned to the different countries — although this will probably not go ahead — they will because of the Schengen convention again and without hesitation return to the country of their dreams. In light of that, do the quota regulations make any sense?
At a future moment, there will be border fences everywhere. That is when people will have to realize that not only migrants cannot enter the EU, but also the whole of Europe.
The Visegrad countries (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) are cooperating in the current crisis. Do you think a basis was created for a later effective bloc of political and economic interests?
I hope that the partnership will expand in the future to include Slovenia, Croatia, and Rumania to defend their interest in and against Brussels, on the grounds of shared interests.
How do you think the EU and the nation states should act to get a grip on the immigration crisis?
The Dublin III Convention and the Schengen system are dead, and therefore the Geneva Refugee Convention should also be scrapped, because this was created after the Second World War for totally different circumstances and totally different solutions to the problems of that time. Now crisis reigns everywhere; soldiers in the streets, locked-up schools, fear and powerless anger, reaching into the hearts of people. The whole world is in the grip of great changes; the situation reminds me of that of WWI. The pope is right: it is WWIII. And it is not just a battle against terrorism, but the war also encompasses other areas: economy, valuta wars, arms dealing, media, and propaganda wars.
What the German press — exceptions prove the rule — writes about emigration has in many instances nothing to do with the truth. The German people are in fact dictated to by the journalists what to think about the refugee situation.
Many media outlets lie in total conscious knowledge of their opinionated influence. They should receive much criticism and they should be taken to court.
The Austrians are nice, well-meaning and pleasant people. They don’t raise their voices against the “shifty” politicians, or against the representatives of art and culture with their unrealistic opinions. Why?
There are many things people do not agree with, but in Austria an opinion terrorism reigns. In businesses, in offices, and in banks workers are not allowed to express negative opinions about migration. Those who nevertheless do risk losing their job.
That also existed in Hungary and was called Communism.
What is happening in Austria these days is in many aspects way worse. For example, one has to rat on those colleagues who say negative things about migration. A network of snitches is being build up.
Freedom of expression is without doubt the most important aspect of a democracy.
That does not interest the people. Instead they are silent, because they afraid to lose their job. Freedom in the West does not have any value anymore; only security.
Where can we find the origins of this curtailing of freedom of expression?
After WWII the people were re-educated. The Germans are not capable of independent thinking anymore; there is no political party that defends their interests. Also in Austria there is a “dumbing-down” in the political arena, maybe the FPÖ is the only party that represents the interests of citizens.
Oh, now many will try to pin you to a certain political party…
I represent no party politics and will never do that. My work is of course also political, but when I get involved in some issue, then it is always for justice and this will always be so in the future. Because I am totally independent, I can afford that luxury.