Rusyn - Hungarian community congress was held in Budapest

Monday, August 11, 2014

The congress was held in Budapest on August 8 where participants decided to form a coordinating council.

The new organization will submit an application to the international community including the UN and the EU, Russia, the USA, and the Hungarian government to help implementing the result of the 1991 referendum.

An all-Transcarpathian referendum was held in 1991 on the self-determination of the region and 80 percent of the population voted for regional autonomy and the establishment of a Transcarpathian Hungarian National Council.

The Hungarian - Rusyn coordinating council envisages a Transcarpathian region, which is part of a federal Ukraine where Rusyn, Romanian, Hungarian, Russian and other nationalities can live in harmony with each other.

Participants of the event denounced the military campaign against Donbass by the Ukrainian army and the raving fascist rampage engulfing the country.

Congress participants are concerned that Transcarpathia could become a new hotbed of regional conflict and confrontation.

Rusyn and Hungarian community leaders stressed that they are determined to defend Transcarpathia's minority education and language rights and protect the conditions that permit decent human existence for all residents of the region.

( - -


Anonymous said...

The Rise and Demise of the EU: A Short History of A Big Failure by Tom Sunic

Several costly mistakes were made by the founding fathers of the European Union:

- economics, and not politics, was thought to be the best tool to bring about the unification of Europe;
- unclear plans about the limits of the enlargement of the European Union;
- the unexpected and ongoing floods of non-European immigration as a result of the iron law of capitalism, combined with starry-eyed, guilt-feeling Christian inspired “love thy colored neighbor” ecumenism.

The first signs of the decline did not wait to occur. The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, the Nice Treaty of 2001, and the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 became face-saving attempts at rectifying the failures already embedded in the founding myth of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

Quite revealing is the fact that the predecessor of the European Union, the European Economic Community (EEC), following the Treaty of Rome in 1957, had adopted the “economic” name and not the name of “political community.” The underlying belief, inherent to liberalism, was that only thorough economic benefits — only through the removal of trade barriers and state borders, and with the free flux of people, goods and capital — would age-old interethnic hatreds among Europeans disappear. The results of such delusions are becoming visible every day...

The Survival of the Liberal West Requires Ethnic Nationalism

Historically the bourgeois representative nation-states of Europe developed in the direction of becoming a majority ethnic group strategy, at least until the mid twentieth century. It did so because elites could more effectively mobilize military and economic collective goods the closer the state resembled a tribal strategy. Global laissez-faire capitalism was perhaps more effective at maximizing the growth of the international economy as a whole; at least that is what formal econometric models predict. But nationalism was the most efficient means for harvesting the public altruism of a population, whether for the purpose of defence, empire building, economic protection, or legitimising socio-economic hierarchy. Nationalism was and remains a powerful political force partly because the social technologies most efficient in mobilizing mass anonymous societies are constrained by the evolved human behavioural repertoire to mimic kin and tribe. It also mobilized elites. Sincere patriotic leaders were among those who supported graduated income taxes and sent their sons to the battlefields in company with the sons of the lower classes.

For these reasons, at the mid point of the twentieth century the typical Western nation state approximated in outline an ethnic group strategy. The state could be said to administer what approximated an ethny (or closely related set of ethnies), because European nation building culminating in the nation state system of the late nineteenth century worked by deploying kinship markers that did in fact correlate to some extent with ethnicity, markers of territory, language, culture and religion. The chief advantages of the ethnic nation state are as follows: (1) A majority of the population it administers is drawn from one ethny or closely related ethnies, providing some confidence of ethnic relatedness and reducing the impact of ethnic free riders. (2) It exercises sovereignty over a territory. (3) It wields unprecedented power to defend borders from unwanted immigration, violent or peaceful. (4) Finally, its administrative apparatus is backed by a monopoly of legitimate coercion that allows the provision of significant collective goods partially proofed against free riders.

Despite these initial strengths, no Western state has for long kept its promise as an adaptive ethnic group strategy...

Post a Comment

Comments using obscene language, or comments calling for hate and violence will be deleted.