The sovereignist forces will have to create a completely new European federal system.

Yes, the goal is what Viktor Orbán said: we must not stop at Schwechat, we must conquer - not Vienna, but - Brussels! And what he said recently is even more important: the migration pact is the last nail in the union's coffin. He added: European unity is over. Don't be scared, take this very seriously, not just words that sound good.

The European Union is in a major crisis, in many ways. But the most important problem: they want to create an empire, a United States of Europe, out of the union.  

And as the most important part of this, they want to abolish the principle of consensus decision in the case of important issues, that is, the right of veto, which, if it were to happen, we would lose our sovereignty, for which we have been fighting for thousands of years.

Can we allow this? Obviously not. As in 1848 and 1956, we must now stand against the forces acting against our independence and sovereignty, this time the political and economic elite in Brussels. Of course, the question immediately arises in this case, which is also justified: what if it doesn't work out? Obviously, we start from the assumption that we will succeed, just as we go to the soccer European Championship by at least advancing from our group, and by winning as many gold medals as possible in the Olympics that follow.

This can be achieved if, in the European Parliament elections between June 6 and 9, the sovereignist forces achieve a significant and visible success against the federalist and globalist political parties. There is a chance that Ursula von der Leyen will not remain the President of the European Commission, who is essentially at the mercy of the WEF, i.e. the World Economic Forum, the Davos elite, or if we could move the composition of the committee in the direction of the sovereignists, and also in the European Parliament the sovereignists would have enough weight to at least counterbalance the left-liberal globalists, but also to gain a majority.

Yes, that's the goal.

And the conquest of Brussels would obviously mean that the union would have to be fundamentally transformed, and moreover a new European federation would have to be created from a semi-federal organization, which would be based on the loose, mainly and decisively economic and commercial cooperation of the member states, and the cultural, scientific, educational , social, family policy, environmental protection, domestic policy, foreign policy, border protection, internal security - and I could list more - all of them.

This new international alliance would prioritize mutually beneficial interests, negotiating with each other as equal parties. Instead of an ever closer union, this would move towards an ever less union, perhaps even more based on the Common Market created by the Treaty of Rome, but even fewer common issues would have to be cooperated. So this could be an unprecedented, completely new international organization!

And here I have to note: I am a bit tired, because I have described and said a thousand times that the text that is often heard on our side, that we must return to the ideas of the founding fathers, is completely wrong here. Well, don't do that! I myself dealt with the seventy-year history of the union in a volume, which was published by the Center for Fundamental Rights, and anyone can read it. In this, I clearly explain that the majority of the founding fathers clearly and from the beginning were supporters of federalism, and indeed of world governance. Among them we find convinced federalists and globalists such as Jean Monnet, Max Kohnstamm, Paul-Henri Spaak, Walter Hallstein, or even the black belt communist Altiero Spinelli.

I must also say that alongside these convinced globalists, there were indeed "founding fathers" who were nation-state leaders and somewhat resisted immediate European integration, which would have eliminated the sovereignty of nation-states. Some of the leaders of the six founding countries belonged here, although I must say that Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer, convinced by Jean Monnet, and even Helmut Kohl himself later were federalists, but there is no doubt that they insisted on the nation-states remaining and the integration should progress only slowly. Here, their commitment to Christianity obviously played a role, but their moderate federalism can be traced not only to this, but also to their real political considerations.

In other words, at the beginning, two schools of thought fought with each other in the union, the federalists, even globalists, and the more moderate ones, who were also in favor of integration, but insisted on the existence of nation states. So don't say let's transform Brussels to go back to the founding fathers, because then we'll get nowhere,

rather, we are saying that we should create a completely new, never-before-seen Europe, democratic to the core, made up of equal states, which does not interfere in the other's business, but only cooperates with it, in which the interests are mutual in the sense of a win-win situation! 

So it's not a return, but a step forward with the courage of the bold!

So much for what if we can conquer Brussels.

But in addition, he is crazy, or simply stupid, who only counts on optimistic scenarios and does not take into account that things can turn out differently. However, this can happen, if only because the population of Western Europe has been so brainwashed by the liberal-progressives for decades that their resistance to this mainstream is at least doubtful.

There must therefore also be a plan B on the part of the sovereigntists, especially on the part of us Hungarians - since we practically lead this group in Europe - which we will implement if the results on June 9 do not turn out as we would like.

Because in the background, the members of the Brussels elite are already preparing to fundamentally transform the union! Well, they are the ones who want to return to the ideas of Jean Monnet, Walter Hallstein, Altiero Spinelli and the other globalists,

that is, they want to assert full and comprehensive power for the center vis-à-vis the member states. In the background, an idea is outlined in which the union would be led by a central government with ministers instead of commissioners, and the government would naturally have the final say on the most important issues, in fact almost everything.

In addition, it is worth mentioning the madness called the Green Deal, which, in essence, is destroying European industry and agriculture due to an inherently dubious and, in my opinion, even wrong principle - that global warming is caused by human carbon dioxide emissions - while the United States, China, Russia, India and the other countries of the South continue what they have been doing until now, at the stupidity of the UN, and achieve enormous economic development, while Europe is completely behind in the world economic competition, because it limits itself in an issue with which it does nothing in the world he reaches, he only shoots himself in the – khm – foot. Finally, I will mention the introduction, popularization and even legalization of gender theory, the amazing spread of LGBTQ propaganda in schools, kindergartens, public education and many other places.

Jeffrey Sachs, a world-renowned, respected American economist and public policy analyst, recently said in the program called The Hill Rising:

"Brussels does not represent the interests of Europe, but the interests of the United States". 

You are absolutely right. So I ask: whoever transforms an organization that betrays Europe into an organization that truly represents the interests of Europe, is he anti-European? I think not. I wasn't very complicated, was I?

Source: Hungarian Nation

Photo: Viktor Orbán's Facebook page