Asking Voters Their Opinion on Immigration is WAYCIST!

The latest lunacy to emerge from the European Parliament beggars description. The leftists that run the place brook no disagreement, and anyone who opposes unlimited immigration into the EU is branded a waaaycist. According to the gutmenschen of the EP, the Hungarians were racists just for asking voters their opinion about the proposed migration quotas.

These bizarre shenanigans seem to be a corollary to Joseph Heller’s famous Catch-22*: To question the legality of any official EU ruling is itself illegal, according to laws that you are not permitted to question.

Many thanks to CrossWare for translating this Hellerian report from the Hungarian news portal Pesti Srácok:

“Even the question in your referendum was racist” — Liberal EP representatives answered us in Brussels

As soon as possible and in its strictest form the leftist opinion leaders of the European Parliament would like to see introduced unlimited mandatory migrant quotas, which are contained in the Dublin IV plan draft. They do not even want to hear about any kind of rethinking or revision of the migrant politics of the EU. This is what we found out in the meeting of EU’s “Civil Liberties Justice and Home Affairs” (LIBE) committee meeting, where our journalist ( visited. After the session we asked many Western European Liberal and Socialist politicians about their opinions. Some of them with humbling simplicity just called the V4 countries migration politics “Nazi”. Others stated that only colonizers practice the politics of exclusion, and they have evolved beyond that point. It came up that the terrorism is not really a big problem, but it is an excellent safety test for the authorities. They made it clear to us that their plan is to keep the migrants in the country they will be assigned to, by making it mandatory to provide equal and standardized care for them everywhere. In this Leftist-Liberal majority committee — with the ferocious agreement of the Hungarian Liberal Péter Niedermüller — the only experts allowed to offer their opinion were without exception on the side of unlimited acceptance of migrants. The questions and opinions of the EU’s People’s Party representatives were completely ignored.

In May the European Commission presented their plan for the corrective distribution of migrants or Dublin IV, which heavily makes use of flowery language to avoid the word “quotas” — even so this is a much harsher quota system than the earlier plan was. Based on this plan, the migrants still have to apply for asylum in the country in which they stepped onto EU soil, but based on this “fair distribution system” they would be distributed among countries if the receiving member state(s) have “disproportionately high pressure” on their immigration system.

Countries would get a “reference number” (in its maiden name: quota) based on their size and economic power, and if the number of migrants applying there for asylum reaches 150% of the original number, then the other countries would receive the overflow based on their “reference number”. The system does not consider closing down the external borders of the EU, just the opposite — with the creation of a European refugee agency it will make the illegal migration a permanent and institutionalized system. If this become enforced law, there would be no upper limit. because no matter how many immigrants arrive, some percentage would be distributed to each member state.

United Front for Migration

On Monday the LIBE conducted a hearing involving “experts” on this topic (migration). The committee makes its voice heard on sensitive issues, while it simply ignores problems which would be in its mandate. The European Parliament’s “elastic” laws makes this possible. It looks like this committee is intended to be a political weapon rather than proper representation, because in its present configuration many female liberal, socialist and communist representatives smoothly work together. Last time the committed advocates for migrant rights officially worried about democracy in Poland, and according to MEP Kinga Gál (Fidesz), it can be expected that the committee will soon take on the Hungarian referendum as well. The Hungarian Liberal Party representative Péter Niedermüller is already using every opportunity to attack Hungary and its government.

Where the Yes Gets 100 Percent!

In the session on Monday the reports of experts followed one right after another. On the 98% results of the Hungarian referendum, many members compared to election results to South Asian dictatorships, but in this hearing not even 2% was given to opposing opinions. All the “experts” made a commitment to support the European Commission’s Dublin IV plan, and the liberal, socialist and communist committee members in the Q&A part of the session zealously campaigned for their experts and praised the “fantastic presentations”. The protesting voices were ignored. The repeated questions of the right wing representatives the experts always forgot to answer: How would they ensure that migrants would stay in the countries selected for them? All the experts “forgot to answer” while they were providing rehearsed showcase answers. At the end the of the session “unfortunately” the time ran out exactly at the moment when one of the EPP [European People’s Party — right-wing conservative group; Orbán’s Fidesz is a member party there] representatives started to complain that he did not get an answer to his questions.

The session’s main guiding thought was that all member states must show solidarity and share the burden of responsibility concerning migrants. The invited experts only examined rights from the migrants’ point of view. Some really unbelievable sentences were spoken:

We need to accept many more migrants…

The asylum seekers must have easier access to protection…

Instead of the obligations of migrants, they only talked about the member states’ obligation to “show more solidarity”.

Instead of Migration and Terrorism, They are Terrified of Honesty

In the presentations and discussions, the question of whether Europe should or should not accept everybody never even came up. The liberal, socialist and communist representatives eagerly philosophized with each other on whether picking out the best and brightest for their own countries and dumping the rest on someone else would be discrimination or not, and also spent a significant time discussing the problems of “unaccompanied minors”, not bothered by the fact that four-fifths of migrants are military-age men.

Terrorism — which is now proven to be correlated with the migration — they called a “controllable danger”, as if they were talking about the neighbor’s kid shooting out the window with a sling-shot, and not fanatic mass-murderers dedicated to the invasion of Europe. It is almost like “the hurricane just picking up the house over our heads, but we are deep in discussion about which pot to use to capture the rainwater to avoid discrimination.”

It is a miracle that the words “solidarity and responsibility” did not get used up completely by the end of the session. But also it was perceptible that political correctness was depressingly dampening the way the representatives expressed themselves. A female Swedish EPP representative explained the ratio of male to female migrants is 11:1. Also so many migrants have arrived in the last couple of years that “we need to take a breath so we can integrate the ones who arrived earlier.” All the while it was very clear that the migrants cannot be integrated and they bring a tsunami of crimes, but she — like anybody else in the room — was not able to express that.

They Gave Outraged Answers to the Questions of PestiSrá

The journalist of PestiSrá asked questions of many MEP advocates of the topic of migration. From Ana Gomes, a Portuguese Socialist representative, we wanted to know why she thinks the defense of EU borders is unnecessary?

“This is outrageous, we are not colonial countries!” she answered heatedly, and as a delegate from an ex-colonial country, she immediately gave testimony about how little she thinks of the more recently admitted Central and Eastern European countries — who by the way never had any colonies. Of course she thinks that sharing the burden of the responsibilities on migrants is naturally expected. She emphasized that Hungarians should know better about this, because the UN created the international refugee law for the Hungarians in 1956. (Of course madame representative is absolutely wrong on this topic, because the foundation of the refugee law was created in 1926 and the 1951 refugee agreement is the core of the international refugee laws even today.)

For our next question, of how many Asian and African migrant we must take responsibility for, she answered: we must help peace everywhere to solve the problem, but we should take responsibility for endless waves of migrants because this is “the history of humanity”.

Everybody comes from somewhere else, she said, but she did not explain to us whether anybody’s ancestors, while they were coming from somewhere else, received free transportation and financial aid in their journey.

We have no other choice but let all the migrants come to Europe; we can’t have walls and fences just because they want to save their lives. Should we let them drown or shoot at them? No! I am not a fascist, I am not a Nazi!” her brief statement concluded.

They Want to Give the Same Amount of Aid in Every Country to the Migrants!

Sophie in’t Veld, a Dutch Liberal representative, believes that only common European policies can help to keep the migrants in the country where they were distributed, to stop them returning to Germany or Sweden.

As much as possible we want to create a similar reception environment in all EU countries, so we need some common standards, she explained to PestiSrá We asked: Would that mean that every country has to give exactly the same social benefits to the migrants? She stated the EU needs some basic elements pointing in this direction, then quickly contradicted herself and she said they did not find the necessary formula, but the social benefits must follow the specific country’s standard of living, because the locals would not accept if the migrants getting more benefits than they were. This reveals that they actually considered this solution, which confirms some gossip in Brussels.

By In’t Veld’s admission, they have no exact idea of how to solve the problem of social benefits, so to avoid the problem and fleeing forward, she thinks the key question is to introduce the migrants into the workforce as soon as possible. To accept the fact that most migrants do not have such ambitions must be avoided at all costs.

Wikström Raises the Bet: Terrorism is a “Good Safety Test”

Cecilia Wikström Swedish Liberal representative is the senior representative of the new migrant asylum legislation in the LIBE committee. We asked her how much they expect the common responsibility to be that is shared by all the state members of the European Union? In her answer she assured us that the largest portion of the 65 million migrants will end up in developing countries because “they do not want to come to Europe”.

The 28 countries that joined the EU agreed and signed at the time that they will obey the rules of the game and accept laws from the Union, said Wikström, generously omitting the fact that back in 2004 when the Central and Eastern European states joined, and before that, no such agreement was proposed. She also addressed the issue that only half of the 1-1.5 million migrants will receive asylum in Europe. In her opinion the rest will just peacefully leave Europe — not bothered by the fact what Germany reported: they can’t deport the majority of migrants because so many of them are in unknown locations.

To aid the rest we are rich enough, she added with Western European self-confidence. She is against the financial punishment of €250,000 per migrant not taken (the lifetime earnings of an average Hungarian teacher!) and she sees it as one of many plans of the European Commission. Of course this does not mean it will not be accepted later by the EC.

For some reason in her mind the refugees of 1956 also came to mind as a parallel, but when we brought it to her attention that not a single terrorist was in the midst of the Hungarian refugees while these migrants have plenty, she became agitated. According to her it is not proven that the Parisian terrorist attacks (Bataclan) were committed by Moroccan and Algerian terrorists who came with fake passports. She explained with extreme cynicism, that the borders must stay open, and filtering out dangerous people is a “good safety test” for the European law enforcement agencies.

Wikström called the Hungarian referendum question “racist”, and she said the billboards were spreading lies [the Hungarian government rented a large number of billboards to help mobilize the voters]. We asked her what kind of lies she was thinking about, exactly? Then, with a halting voice, she brought up an example which asserts an equivalence between terrorists and migrants. When we proved that there was no such billboard, she with an uncertain voice claimed she saw it with her own eyes.

It is absolutely crazy what kinds of opinions prevail about the migrant crisis in the bureaucratic depths of the European Union. All measures are aimed at letting as many migrants as possible legally into all member states of the European Union. Such statements are now openly expressed by “experts” hired by the European Parliament. The direction is absolutely clear; they do not even bother to deny it anymore. In the meantime, the European Commission introduced their suggestions for the Dublin IV law package, but some of the most prominent MEPs supporting it still stated in an interview in October that they had not found the proper formula for keeping the migrants at their distributed location, which shows how well organized the EC is under the leadership of Juncker.

*   “Catch-22,” the old woman repeated, rocking her head up and down. “Catch-22. Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing.”


“Didn’t they show it to you?” Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. “Didn’t you even make them read it?”

“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.”

“What law says they don’t have to?”


36 thoughts on “Asking Voters Their Opinion on Immigration is WAYCIST!

  1. Among the twittering leftists is this rising ideology of migration rights. That it is a “human right” to leave your place of birth and “migrate” to wherever you can obtain a better standard of living. And because it is a human right it trumps (no pun intended) the sovereignty of nations to control their borders and immigration. This argument will become as pervasive as the ideas of “institution racism”, “cultural safety” and many other staples of the looney left. But this migration rights idea will be used to bully countries into taking people they don’t want and expect the UN and the EU to be at the forefront.

    • Best to respond to those Leftists morons is by claiming their apartment, car, money they have because you determined you deserve it better and if someone can change country to get better standard of living (macro size) then it must be true in micro size. Unfortunately those Marxists idiots have nothing, accomplished nothing and tweeting away from their parents basement.

    • Yves Mamou notes there are “at least 42 categories of human rights fields are determined, each of which are split into two or three subcategories.”
      While the number of authoritarian countries has actually “increased”.
      Just like multikulti, Western nations are the only ones playing.
      He says Human Rights have moved way past their original intention and are now “a tool manipulated by Islamists and others to dismantle secularism, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in European countries.”
      He concludes that the fight against Islamism, might initially “consist of a fight against the caste that governs us.”
      Replace ‘might’ with ‘must’ and he’s spot on.
      (valid link but the Gatestone Institute site is down at the moment)

  2. The “West” is seriously mentally ill. In such a mentally unbalanced diseased state opening ones dregs and other goodies to Muslim trash can only end in bloody mayhem. Not to mention starting a nuclear war with Russia. We are mad as mad can be.

  3. You mean dat if I don’t ant to be ovewwun by wefugees that I am a waycist?! Weally Bugs, how can did be twue??

  4. The Austro-Hungarian empire had one real (settlement in Tientsin) and one de facto colony (Bosnia).

  5. 42.5 grains of Hogdon H335 ball powder behind any good .308″ 150 grain jacked bullet works well for me in both bolt-action and (semi-)automatic rifles in 7.62 (.308 Winchester).
    For the ‘new’ 5.56 mm rifles (.223 Remington) 25.5 grains of the same stuff behind any good 55 grain bullet does very well in virtually all rifles–and some single-shot pistols as well.
    These are NOT the hot loads–but I doubt that any target shy of 400 yards could tell the difference.
    FYI–just some good information to help our readers deal with the coming near-future events planned for us.
    You DON’T reload your ammunition? Why, pray tell?

    • You DON’T reload your ammunition? Why, pray tell?

      Because it is not given to all of us to fight this evil in the same way. Just as in every army that has ever existed, not all are assigned – or choose to be – sharpshooters.

      • Trust me, you are doing much good, and to MUCH better effect with your pen (keyboard) than I can or will with the M14.
        Mine may well be a futile and last-ditch effort, but as the hoplite said “Come on, men! You wanna live FOREVER?”

    • Are you a sheepdog too?

      “Wayne Kyle: [to his sons] There are three types of people in this world: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Some people prefer to believe that evil doesn’t exist in the world, and if it ever darkened their doorstep, they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves. Those are the sheep.

      Wayne Kyle: Then you’ve got predators who use violence to prey on the weak. They’re the wolves.

      Wayne Kyle: And then there are those blessed with the gift of aggression, an overpowering need to protect the flock. These men are the rare breed who live to confront the wolf. They are the sheepdog.” – American Sniper

    • How about razor-sharp Wustoff kitchen knives and Stanley bladed utility knives for close order combat? Maybe a crossbow if I can find one. Guns are soooo noisy.

  6. Dissidents in the Soviet Union evaded capture and arrest (at least tried to) by using the samizdat ( It was dangerous and perhaps not too effective, but by avoiding the centralized and controlled means of communication and using quasi un-traced paper documents, they managed to pass information and ideas around. Maybe, it’s time to start Samizdat in the EU and the rest of the western world.
    No, I do not say that we should use paper only, but there should be ways to avoid the censorship of the elite ruling class and collaborators with the Islamic colonialists.

    (BTW, I think we should emphasize the concept of Islamic Colonialism. I fits nicely with the newspeak that is enforced on us.)

      • There sbould be ways , we should be ibovative enouh to invent them. And, we should not be afraid of being sent to the gulag. It is dangerous, but e should take example of Tommy Robinson and other heros. The enemy builds onour fear. It is easy to say since I am not anywhere near the EU, but in my way I do say it here in the US

  7. Were there any other historical times when large groups of people were trying to damage themselves? The Romans?

    Maybe if we could study these peoples and find the antecedent, we could understand why so many Europeans are so loopy.

    Could it be that any society that has gone through tremendous episodes of killing–as in WWII–does this kind of self-damaging stuff…from a sort of displaced guilt?

    If this were some kind of devious post-modern Gramsci scheme to bring in new communism or something, they have shown no clue as to how they plan to get rid of the Islamists.

    Bizzaro world.

    • They could turn to Jesus Christ, but that would mean that they must acknowledge the fact of a God in Heaven Who created them. No more convenient rationalizations using Darwinian Evolution. Awwww, tsk, tsk!

    • The Roman Empire was existentially bled dry over a 600 year period from within by a succession of rebellions.

      Mercenaries, employed to bolster the legions ability to defend the empire’s ever expanding borders, would inevitably turn on their masters, as did the vast armies of slaves too.

      Successive Emperors arrogantly believed that they were truly
      Gods destined to rule unchallenged and brooked no advice or criticism accordingly.

      I see parallels with Merkel, Tusk, Hollande, Sutherland, Juncker, Soros and others in this respect.

      The (new) barbarians are at the gate of Europe, by invitation of the above, there will be appalling bloodshed, as the west succumbs meekly to its fate.

      How we have failed our children, grandchildren and future generations yet to come, all because we have failed to learn the simple lessons of history.

      The Greek Empire, founded on the credo, of learning, culture
      And philosophy did not last as long as the Roman Empire,
      Founded on brute force, iron will and strict discipline.

      Perhaps like the Greek Empire, with our effete, liberal ways,
      We have surrendered our western way of life two centuries earlier than necessary as we soul search introspectively about everything but FIGHT for nothing anymore.

  8. One of many conclusion could be drawn from the above article, is voter apathy is one of the things can help elect such incompetent and insane representatives to any leadership positions. With the upcoming election in the USA especially important to emphasize this!
    Also more and more I am thinking how the classic democracy no longer works in our societies. The original idea was that responsible citizens can make well thought out decisions, knowing the consequences of their choices. Are we still having only responsible citizens voting or it is brainwashed masses (sheeple) following the sound of a bell and it does not matter who holds that bell… (yes real sheep (soo stupid) is usually following a bell on a donkey).
    I am a big Sci-Fi fan. I really enjoyed the movie Starship Troopers. Even if it was just a lightweight shooting, fighting winning type of movie and it played in a slightly depressing but benevolent military dictatorship, one idea was quite brilliant:
    Not every people had the right to be a “citizen” and vote but only the ones who done something for their society. (In the movie the veterans were that group). Well obviously that would not directly translate into reality but a good start.
    Why we can’t have a society where direct democracy rules (similar to Switzerland) but only deserving members of the society can vote. (who is deserving could be selected on many different way, example military service, community work, really paying taxes etc… Such criteria could be setup and applied.

    • I’ve been thinking about that lately. Problem is, when you deny some folks the vote, some day, those folks may deny the vote to you. Plus corruption and all that… I would favor a system, best tried on a local level, where everybody has one vote, but people can earn more. There could be an extra vote for public service, like you say. But what really appeals to me is to be able to give my vote to others, when it comes to voting on stuff I don’t much understand. For example, my neighbor has really studied all the energy stuff, biofuels, alternatives to oil, and so on. And I know him to be a person of integrity. If a vote was coming up for that, I would give him my vote gladly, to add to his. What do you think?

      • I think if the principals of such system should be based on Maker and Taker model.
        If you are a Maker (serve your country, pay your taxes etc) you have the right to vote. If you are a Taker (living on social benefits etc) then no. People could move in and out of their state of eligibility. (found work => no more social benefits, you can vote)
        The conditions should be never around money (one should not able to buy votes). If we have undisputable conditions set for eligibility, corruption could not find its way there so easily.
        Another important part is direct democracy. You are right it should start in local level. No elected politicians making decision, only “citizens” vote determine every issue. Nobody would try to bribe a whole community, if there are no politicians only public administrators executing the decisions.

      • Just to put in my two cents, I believe that alternative energy is a good thing just as long I don’t have to subsidize it. By the same standard, I find it abhorrent to give tax brakes to big oil. I believe in fair play, the Capitalist system, and personal responsibility.

  9. Where to start?

    First to GoV and CrossWare, thank you for these informative articles that will never see the light of day in any MSM forum here in the US. The recent László Földi interviews (x3) have been most eye opening and it is encouraging to know, or at least have evidence, that intelligent people are still in positions of power – that the globalist goons don’t control everything. Also, it’s good to see that at least in Hungary current event items like the Földi interviews are carried on at least one of their TV channels. Question – was/is the TV channel that carried the Földi interviews MSM in Hungary?

    This article today (“Asking Voters . . .”) as stated, “beggars description”. How true. I think the biggest take away is how totalitarian and tyrannical the European Parliament has become, or maybe more properly, continues to be. It also does inform on their use of Nazi tactics (the Big Lie, for one), again something that will not see the light of day in any MSM forum.

    I have said this before and I repeat now: the results of the November 8th election loom so important that it’s indescribable – (someone else might say it “beggars description”!) The following are forward looking statements that hopefully will not happen. They are also my opinions.

    If HRC wins the election, then Matthew Bracken’s “Tet, Take Two” will shortly commence in Europe, probably on the 9th. The migration floodgates will re-open. The migrants (currently 70% – 80% males of fighting age) will commence to move inside homes in Germany, France, Sweden, Holland, etc doing so at will and with the aid and protection of “indigenous authority”. Brexit will go by the way side. Other mumblings in other European countries about an “Exit” will fall silent. Geert Wilders will go to jail. Norbert Hofer will not be taking the oath of office. Etc, ad infinitum. It will move in this direction and swiftly. Who knows when events will proceed to civil strife with blood shed – unlike Mr. Bracken, I’m not sure they will because I’m not sure that the indigenous populations have much “warrior” left in them. Time will tell, and tell soon.

    Many additional points to write about but I do have a day job. Great article(s) GoV and CrossWare. Please continue.

    • Thank you very much for your kind encouragement! 🙂

      >>Question – was/is the TV channel that carried the Földi interviews MSM in Hungary?

      Yes it was M1 the official state channel carried this interviews.

      Unfortunately there is still a strong presence of the Soros paid Liberal ideology in the media, while their voting base less than 5% they still represent 70-80% in the media. One of the latest news in Hungary that the originally communist party owned newspaper “Népszabadság” (People’s Freedom) was closed down. The Liberals screaming bloody murder and blaming the Orbán government for suppressing free press and freedom in Hungary. What really happened? The Austrian owner of the newspaper had enough of generating 5 billion Forint loss (around $200 million US dollar) in the last 5 years and decided to not invest more money in it! Of course all the MSM now up in arms about it. Fact checking is a thing of a past. There is a lot of parallel between bashing Hungary and bashing Trump. Most Hungarians who I know taking this as badge of honor and looking with great hope to electing a president who can help Europe and help the Hungarians to resist the Globalists.

      Also I agree with your analysis, it will be dark times coming and all is depend on the US election…

  10. “Even the question in your referendum was racist” – Liberal EP representatives in Brussels.

    The proper response to that mindset has to be “So what?”.

  11. This is absolute madness. Lunacy. The European union was a great idea when it started under different goals, today it is the cause of the coming civil war in each of the socialist countries which have used the power of Brussels to dictate to others their view of what Europe should be. It is time to pick up the gun.

Comments are closed.