Such headlines rolled across many of Europe’s portals and publications, however the public, which only reads headlines and thus forms its perception and understanding of the world may have formed a completely different impression.
“A sleepy Europe is marching to oblivion and the people must wake up before it is too late,” G. Soros wrote. If not, he stated, the European Union would meet the same fate as the Soviet Union in 1991.
Neither leaders, nor common people, according to G. Soros, realise that now is the breaking point where there are numerous possibilities, however the results are completely unclear. The coming EP elections are especially important for the future of the continent, but “anti-European” parties are gaining ever more competitive advantages.
We were active in the destruction of the USSR, the empire of evil. We dreamed, we idealised and we desired to be part of a calm, peaceful and wealthy Europe.
We work hard, became as such, but contemporary reality is different. We now see ourselves that our dream home needs quick and thorough repairs.
But to return to the start. G. Soros has come out in open support of the status quo, taking to the side of the Brussels elite and urging the public to unite during the coming EP elections against those, who are discontent with current EU politics.
In a time of political correctness, forced tolerance, hypocrisy and pandering, there is a natural demand for open talk and direct questions. We probably still do have that right?
For example, I do not know in what democratic way – the European, based on national referenda or otherwise – it was decided that the foundation of European civilization – Christian values, family, motherhood and fatherhood are bygones and can be mocked from the highest stages of the EU.
When was it universally agreed that Europe does not need to be Christian, that the only possible path is multiculturalism and tolerance to anyone, that nation states are outdated and should be destroyed?
Who and when decided that all EU countries must operate under one ideology and lifestyle?
How does this match the neoliberals’ strongly promoted policy of “variety”? Is the Lisbon Agreement, which outlines the exclusive competences of EU member states, no longer applicable?
We do not even know, who the real architects of all this are, however we clearly see that this ideology and those pushing it are cunningly employing the habit of westerners conditioned by the spirit of political correctness to be obedient and law-abiding citizens, whose reaction to any moral dictate is silent agreement, shrugging or withdrawal with eyes cast down.
And those, who ask inconvenient questions or openly stand against such politics are immediately labelled as “the extreme right”, “populists”, “anti-establishment”, “anti-European” and “Eurosceptics”.
Keeping in mind that in the mind of so-called neoliberals, there is ever less capitalism and the fogs of socialism become ever thicker, I would not be surprised if a formulation we know well will be drawn from the past – “the bourgeois nationalist.”
The use of such words intimidates and misleads the public because there is only a pitiful minority of those, who would like to completely dismantle the EU, while the majority support a reformed, renewed, united and strong Europe, which is based on clear rights and competences.
On the other hand, by denying reality and sliding on the surface of the censored and beautified common European panorama, you can be left with the impression that the absolute majority agrees to the neoliberal and mass migration policy.
It is namely this conviction that the Brussels elite operates based on, thinking that the so-called silent majority is their support.
However, this could be a sweet self-deception, a major and dangerous mistake. This was shown by the example of France, where the Yellow Vest movement and the chaos it causes arose seemingly from nowhere, predicted and expected by no one. A part of society simply had enough at one point.
The ideological terror and imposition of the extremes of neoliberal politics of the EU political elite have antagonised not only the entire EU, but also the publics of separate member states. This includes Lithuania. Democratic European countries are losing the fundamental, decades old tradition – finding consensus on the most important questions.
What is worst is that so far, the EU elites deny any opportunity for broad compromise. In other terms, from now on the future of Europe will be decided only by political power proportions and the distribution of votes, while ideological and paradigm confrontations will only deepen.
Currently, analysts are observing two major trends, which promise nothing good: European left-wing parties are inclined to alliances with Islamists and left-wing radicals, while the so-called ultra-right is in the Russian zone of influence.
The newest surveys show that the representatives of political powers disagreeing with Brussels’ current politics could receive a third or perhaps even more seats in the EP. Such representation could change the EP’s work style and content. Currently the EP contains 7 groups, which unite EP members from different states based on their political views.
While the EP elections will be held across the EU on May 23-26 and on May 26 in Lithuania, there are already preliminary meetings and negotiations being held, seeking to draw up the contours of the parliament’s future groups. It would be a good idea to ask our own candidates in what groups they see themselves.
Regardless of Europe and at the same time us standing on the precipice of massive potential changes, the EP elections still do not seem important to either voters or party leaders.
Take Ramūnas Karbauskis’ statement that LVŽS candidates “are not going into retirement or to seek a better life, but to work for Lithuania” is insignificant in a political sense. So will we continue floating downstream, picking up all sorts of ropės, stumbrienės, šustauskases, harolds and marčiulionises and will then moan about it?