Viktor Orbán: “Say Goodbye to the Entire Elite of ’68”

Source: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the 29th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp

Above is the complete video, with English subtitles, of Orbán’s speech in Transylvania, in which he highlighted his accomplishments and outlined a vision of a renewed Central Europe pursuing its own geopolitical interests, but also being a region based on national sovereignty, Christian values, and resistance to contemporary Left-wing “liberalism,” as well as the rejection of non-European immigration and the values of the “’68 generation.” The link is to the complete text of this speech, which is a bit long to follow along comfortably with the subtitles – at least it is, for me.

There is much in this speech that is worth “reading, marking, learning, and inwardly digesting,” but one item that leapt out at me were the five tenets he proposed for not Hungary alone, but Central Europe, in the years and decades ahead. They are these:

“I have formulated five tenets for the project of building up Central Europe. The first is that every European country has the right to defend its Christian culture, and the right to reject the ideology of multiculturalism.

“Our second tenet is that every country has the right to defend the traditional family model, and is entitled to assert that every child has the right to a mother and a father.

“The third Central European tenet is that every Central European country has the right to defend the nationally strategic economic sectors and markets which are of crucial importance to it.

“The fourth tenet is that every country has the right to defend its borders, and it has the right to reject immigration.

“And the fifth tenet is that every European country has the right to insist on the principle of one nation, one vote on the most important issues, and that this right must not be denied in the European Union.

“In other words, we Central Europeans claim that there is life beyond globalism, which is not the only path.”

With obvious adjustments based on region and political alignment (particularly for those of us who are – thankfully! – not part of the EU), it seems to me that these five tenets make a good deal of sense for all who value national sovereignty, identify, self-expression, history, heritage, and tradition over globalist suppression of these elements.

And then there is this, in which he has placed his finger squarely upon the crisis facing Europe itself:

I can tell you that if we take a look at Europe, we can see that it was once a great civilization. Europe was once a power center that shaped the world. This was so because it dared to think, it dared to act, it was brave, and it embarked upon great endeavors.

“If we look at one civilization or another from a spiritual perspective – and there is a branch of literature devoted to this – we can conclude that civilizations are comprised of four things. Civilizations are entities of a spiritual nature. They are formed from the spirit of religion, the spirit of creative arts, the spirit of research, and the spirit of business enterprise. These are the spirits that can form a civilization.

“If we look at our Europe now in terms of the spirit of religion, we see that it has rejected its Christian foundations. In terms of the spirit of creative arts, we see that there is censorship, and political correctness is forced upon us. In terms of the spirit of research, we can say that the US has overtaken our Europe, and soon China will also have done so. And as regards the spirit of business in Europe, we can say that instead of the spirit of business, today Brussels and economic regulations are ruled by the spirit of bureaucracy.”

He continues,

The gravity of the situation – the gravity of the situation of European civilization – has been revealed by the migrant crisis. Let me take a complex thought and simplify it: We must face up to the fact that Europe’s leaders are inadequate, and that they’ve been unable to defend Europe against immigration. The European elite has failed, and the European Commission is the symbol of that failure…

“Now we should ask ourselves why the European elite – which is today exclusively a liberal elite – has failed.

The answer to this question – or at least this is where I look for the answer – is that first of all it has rejected its roots, and instead of a Europe resting on Christian foundations, it is building a Europe of the ‘open society.’ In Christian Europe, there was honor in work, man had dignity, men and women were equal, the family was the basis of the nation, the nation was the basis of Europe, and states guaranteed security.

“In today’s open-society Europe, there are no borders; European people can be readily replaced with immigrants; the family has been transformed into an optional, fluid form of cohabitation; the nation, national identity, and national pride are seen as negative and obsolete notions; and the state no longer guarantees security in Europe. In fact, in liberal Europe, being European means nothing at all: It has no direction, and it is simply form devoid of content.”

This could, of course, be said about the West in general, at this point in our history! But the situation is even more poignant and critical in Europe itself, which is the homeland of its own indigenous people – Europeans – as well as acutely vulnerable (due to its location) to masses of migrants pouring in from elsewhere… and particularly from regions with alien cultures and ethnicities.

The potential result, if left unchecked, is the complete annihilation of Europe itself: a threat which should be of concern not only to anyone of European heritage, anywhere in the world, but of anyone, anywhere, who has any concern for legitimate multiculturalism, true global diversity, and cultural survival – not the ersatz version of “multiculturalism” spewed by the globalist Left.

Orbán continues,

If you think back over the past one hundred years or so of European democracy, you can detect a pattern in which matters in Europe have effectively been decided by competition between two camps: on one side, communities based on the continuing foundations of Christian tradition – let us call them Christian democratic parties; and, on the other side, the organizations of communities which question and reject tradition – let us call them Left-wing liberal parties…

Christian democratic politics means that the ways of life springing from Christian culture must be protected. Our duty [from a political perspective] is not to defend the articles of faith, but the forms of being that have grown from them.

“These include human dignity, the family, and the nation – because Christianity does not seek to attain universality through the abolition of nations, but through the preservation of nations. Other forms which must be protected and strengthened include our faith communities. This – and not the protection of religious articles of faith – is the duty of Christian democracy…

Let us confidently declare that Christian democracy is not liberal. Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues – say, three great issues.

“Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.”

“Illiberal” is a word-concept that rings with some dissonance on the contemporary ear, especially here in the U.S., where there is still a memory of classical or traditional liberalism, with its connotations of broad-mindedness, generosity, and tolerance. The sad truth, however, is that what passes for political “liberalism” in today’s world has strayed very far from those concepts. Par exemple:

For our Founders, liberty involved freedom from excessive government interference; for today’s liberals, government enforcement of their preferred social norms is not only permissible, but expected, even demanded. For liberals of the past, freedom of speech and expression was a fundamental, core value; for the so-called “liberal” Left of today, freedom of speech may be, and they would argue in some cases should be, suppressed to prevent what they view as “offensive” speech. Such are the vagaries of linguistic development, in the sociopolitical sphere!

In such a context, to classify what Orbán calls “Christian democracy” as “illiberal” is not only comprehensible, but logical: liberalism having betrayed its own foundations, it must now be reigned in for the good of society, and for the future of humankind. As a first step in that direction, he cites the upcoming European Parliament elections, scheduled for next May:

Let us brace ourselves, let us launch ourselves into this intellectual debate, and so let us steel ourselves for the European Parliament elections. We are on the threshold of a great moment, and we’ll see whether or not it comes to fulfillment. The opportunity is here. Next May we can wave goodbye not only to liberal democracy and the liberal non-democratic system that has been built on its foundations, but also to the entire elite of ’68.

If the elite of ’68 leaves the field, there is only one question to be answered: who will arrive to replace them? And the modest answer we must give to this is that we are on our way. Calmly, and with restraint and composure, we must say that the generation of the ’90s is arriving to replace the generation of ’68. In European politics, it is the turn of the anti-Communist generation, which has Christian convictions and commitment to the nation.

Thirty years ago, we thought that Europe was our future. Today we believe that we are Europe’s future.

For someone such as myself, who is deeply concerned about the direction of the West, it is impossible not to read these words and be encouraged. Not that Orbán is perfect; there is One and only One perfect man, One and only One Saviour: Jesus Christ our Lord. As one commentator points out, many of us are

“always looking for a hero – Putin, Trump, Orbán, or whoever – and as we know this sometimes leads people to ignore their flaws and hero-worship them, all of whom in the end are, after all, nothing more than politicians, even if they do things that are in some ways beneficial for us.

“And there are certainly valid criticisms one can make of Orbán, especially for a Hungarian. But I still think that the positives far outweigh the negatives. There can be no question that Orbán has done great work on behalf of all in the West by standing up to Brussels over immigration.”

Indeed. I wish him, Hungary, and the Visegrád Four (as well as their allies in Austria and Italy) all the best, as they struggle to protect the sovereignty, self-identify, culture, history, and heritage of Europe – Christian Europe – against a rising tide of alien immigration from without, and atheistic nihilism from within.

Read the speech (or listen to it and read the subtitles). There is much more than I have recounted here, and though a lot of it is specific to Hungary and/or Central Europe, there is much that’s worth reading by the rest of us!

Advertisements

The charge of the Winged Hussars: the lifting of the Siege of Vienna

Image result for winged hussars

Some further details on the lifting of the Siege of Vienna:

On this day in history, September 12, 1683, the combined forces of the Holy Roman (German) Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the Holy League), under the overall command of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland, moved into position to engage the Ottoman Turkish besiegers outside the walls of Vienna. Fierce clashes followed. Imperial / Holy League forces made headway against the Ottoman invaders, but were unable to conclusively defeat them.

At around 3:00 in the afternoon, King Jan began to move his cavalry into position. As they came out of the woods and began to form up, they were greeted with enthusiastic cheers by the allied troops. An hour later, about four o’clock, the Polish Winged Hussars launched an attack which battered the Turkish lines, causing great consternation and forcing the Turkish general to retreat to a more favorable position. Infantry forces continued the fight against the Ottomans.

At six o’clock came the final blow. In the largest cavalry charge in history, King Jan Sobieski launched 18,000 cavalry, led by his 3,000 Winged Hussars, against the Ottoman lines. They clove through the Turks like the proverbial “hot knife through butter,” breaking and scattering them completely and driving them from the field. As the attack crested, the Austrian defenders of Vienna sallied from their city to join in, adding the crowning blow.

The siege of Vienna had been broken, and the decades to follow would see the Muslim Turks driven almost completely out of Christian Europe. After the battle, King Jan III Sobieski (who would receive the title Defensor Fidei – “Defender of the Faith” – from Pope Innocent XI) reportedly announced, in an intentional modification of Julius Caesar’s famous phrase, “Veni, vidi, Deus vicit” — “I came, I saw, God conquered.”

Footnote: the Lithuanians have not been mentioned. That’s because King Jan left his kingdom almost completely undefended, bringing his entire army to the relief of Vienna! As a result, the Hungarians decided to take advantage of the situation and try to take Polish territory. The Lithuanians, also marching toward Vienna, turned aside to counter-attack the Hungarians. They were successful in driving them back, but it meant that the Lithuanian army did not arrive at Vienna until several days after the siege had been broken.

“I didn’t fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France”: Bardot slams modern-day France | RT World News

'I didn’t fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France': Bardot slams modern-day France

“I did not fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France. I do not touch the culture, the identity and the customs of others; let’s not touch mine.” – Brigitte Bardot

Source: ‘I didn’t fight against French Algeria to accept an Algerian France’: Bardot slams modern-day France — RT World News

Brigitte Bardot – a noted actress and famous beauty who starred in 47 films (most of them in the 1950s and 60s) – was an outspoken critic of the French colonial presence in Algiers, which gained its independence from France after a vicious 8-year war (1954-1962). But, as she pointed out in an interview with the French weekly Valeurs Actuelles,

France is not what it once was. “I have been brought up in honor, patriotism, love and respect for my country, and when I see what it has become, I feel desperate,” she said.

The 83-year-old also said that it is “unacceptable” to see burqas become commonplace in France, and Islamists are “practically everywhere.”

This article also notes that

The former actress didn’t mince her words when it came to her thoughts on the European Union either. “We have to get out of it,” she said. Bardot added that she is a supporter of right-wing National Front politician Marine Le Pen, who has also spoken out against France’s membership in the EU.

With so many Left-wing actors and other entertainers espousing cultural Marxism on this side of the Atlantic (and probably in Europe, too), it’s actually rather refreshing to hear such an icon of the silver screen speaking out in favor of protecting the culture, history, and heritage of her home country!

What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? | Chatham House

New research points to significant and widespread levels of public anxiety over immigration from mainly Muslim states.

The Chatham House article is most interesting: it appears that, once again (as is very often – not always, but very often – the case), the ordinary people of Europe have more sense than their alleged “leaders.” To wit:

Drawing on a unique, new Chatham House survey of more than 10,000 people from 10 European states, we can throw new light on what people think about migration from mainly Muslim countries. Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread.

In our survey… respondents were given the following statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’. They were then asked to what extent did they agree or disagree with this statement. Overall, across all 10 of the European countries an average of 55% agreed that all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped, 25% neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% disagreed.

Majorities in all but two of the ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.

In case that wasn’t clear enough, let me restate: in none of the ten European countries surveyed (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK) did more than a third disagree with the statement that “All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped.” The others were either in favor of stopping Islamic immigration, or neutral on the idea.

There is the obligatory observation that there is

“a clear education divide. Of those with secondary level qualifications, 59% opposed further Muslim immigration. By contrast, less than half of all degree holders supported further migration curbs.”

The question that this does not ask, still less answer, however, is whether this supposedly greater support for immigration among those with academic degrees is a function of being “better educated,” per se, or being more thoroughly indoctrinated by the left-leaning academic establishment. I suspect the latter!

This article is a year old, of course; I am only just now seeing it. But somehow, I doubt that attitudes have changed much. If anything, they may have hardened.

Granted that I am basing this observation primarily off of Facebook and YouTube, which tend to point to the more extreme ends of the spectrum: but there is, it seems to me, a simmering frustration on the part of many Europeans over the social-engineering projects of those who seem to consider themselves their “betters.”

The European political establishment seems to be feeling it, too, as they appear to be doubling down on their use of legal enforcement to suppress nationalistic and anti-immigrant sentiments. The problem, of course, is that when you put a lid on a simmering pot, the pressure builds, and you need to add more and more weight to keep the lid on. When it finally blows, it can be quite messy…

Marion Le Pen at CPAC – Controversy and Common Sense

Image may contain: 1 person, text

“We do not want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without mother, without father, without nation.”

Source: Marion Le Pen at CPAC | Defend Europa

“To open up to the outside, you must have a solid core. To welcome, you have to remain. To share, you must have something to offer.”

Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is a controversial figure, and having her speak at CPAC was a controversial decision, because the party she represents, France’s Front National (highlights of whose current program are found here), is controversial: in part because of some unfortunate statements regarding the Holocaust by its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen (Marion Le Pen’s grandfather) – who has since been expelled – and in part because under the currently-dominant metric here in the U.S. (and in much of the West), anyone who is not hard-Left is therefore “far-right.”

Be that as it may, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen’s remarks should not be controversial to anyone who cares about his or her own country or its people, who is suspicious of the globalist agenda, and who believes that, basically, charity begins at home. Speaking of her home country of France, she asserts,

“France is no longer free today! The French are not free to choose their policies, whether they are economic, monetary, on immigration or even diplomacy. Our freedom is now in the hands of the European Union. This European Union is not Europe. It is an ideology that looks only to the future while being contaminated with historic amnesia. An ideology without land, without people, without roots, without soul, and without civilization. EU is in the process of slowly killing millenary nations.”

In other words, as the linked article points out, the EU “is not Europe, it’s an authoritarian system that is slowly destroying the nation states and the various European Identities.”

The idea of capital-“I” Identities, or as it’s sometimes called, “Identitarianism,” is another concept that is under fire by the mainstream/Left, but that outrage possesses a level of irony that would be amusing if it were not so maddening: it is perfectly all right to “identify” as a “person of color,” as somewhere on the “LGBT-etc.” spectrum, even as a “gender” different than the biological sex with which one was born – but as soon as you start identifying as a European (especially if you dare to use the “W” word), you are anathema: racist, fascist, xenophobic, Nazi. As I say, it would be amusing if it were not so aggravating!

Personally, I do identify as European (or, technically, an American of European descent) – and within that, primarily as English, Scots, and German – the same way I do as a man: not as a political statement, but as a simple and incontrovertible fact, an expression of biological (and in the case of my European identity, cultural and historical) reality. It is the actions and reactions of people on the Left that are gradually forcing me to view this identity in more socio-political terms: my heritage, both genetic and cultural, is under attack, and that unfortunate fact forces me to defend it.

This reality does not fill me with glee! Quite the contrary, in fact. I am not any sort of a supremacist, nor am I a colonialist, nor (much as I respect and appreciate, say, the Roman and British Empires) an imperialist. Like a lot of folks, I mainly want to be left alone. But I also want my people to be left alone, and not to be subsumed, oppressed, overrun, interbred, or replaced. So I suppose that makes me an Identitarian… and if so, so be it. I did not choose the label, or the fight; both were forced upon me. But just as in my school days – when I did not start fights, but often finished them – I’m not going to back down, either!

At any rate, that personal statement aside, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen has other good things to say, as the linked article recounts:

Marion also had thoughts about the state of modern society and the importance of things like family and values. She stated: “Without nation and without family, the limit of the common good, natural law and collective morality disappears as the reign of egoism continues.”

“Egoism” referring to the current incarnation of the “me generation,” in which what “I” want, be it sexual license, freedom from unwanted pregnancies (even if it means killing the unborn), from the commitment to marriage, etc., etc. – the list could go on – is more important than what is good for families, society as a whole, children, and future generations. The article goes on to note,

The current reign of egoism is the manifestation of modernism, a shallow ideology which forces individualism and the atomization of society on the younger generations, the biggest victims of modern society.

Indeed. As I suggested above, these are the sorts of thoughts and positions which should not be controversial in any sane society; the fact that they are indeed controversial in our current one says things that are less-than-flattering about it! I am reminded of the meme I posted, I think, some while ago:

Kids are more depressed these days

As I have commented previously, smartphones are part of it. But they are more a symptom than the disease: a symptom of an alienated and alienating society, disconnected from its geographical, cultural, and historical roots, as well as from an organic, holistic, integral community of which one can feel truly and fully a part.

In such a context, it is perhaps not surprising that so many people – and not just young people – would retreat into technology, seeking solace in that electronic drug: or perhaps one might say, that false and idolatrous religion, if it is seen as the primary source of meaning and “salvation” in one’s life.

But the fact that younger people, such as Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, are beginning to awaken to the sad and degraded state of our present society – and are starting to push back – is very encouraging, to me. God grant the pendulum is beginning to swing in a saner and more wholesome direction!

See also: Marion Marechal-Le Pen’s surprising conservative message

Video of her speech at CPAC:

Christianity: The Last Hope for Europe | The Imaginative Conservative

https://i2.wp.com/www.theimaginativeconservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Orban-768x490.jpg

If everything continues in this way, then the cities of Europe will clearly have majority Muslim populations, our identity and our nations as we know them will cease to exist, our worst nightmares will have become reality. The West will fall…

Source: Christianity: The Last Hope for Europe – The Imaginative Conservative

Hungarian Prime Minister issues a warning… and also expresses some hope:

“Commentators claim that there are dark clouds gathering over Europe, due to immigration. There have always been dark prophecies. This is the familiar background music to European politics. What’s worrying these days is that in essence they are mathematical in nature: even though they are estimates, they are about numbers and quantifiable changes; and numbers always carry a great deal of weight…

“For instance, in Bavaria now more money is being spent on asylum, immigration and integration than on the combined state budget for the economy, the environment and health care. Visiting Vienna I heard that this year’s school enrolment data took everyone very much by surprise: the percentage of Muslim children among those starting school has soared. This is the future that over there is already the present. According to NATO reports – it seems that soldiers don’t yet allow themselves to be censored – by 2020, sixty million people will have set off for Europe. There’s also consensus that Africa will be more powerful than any previous expectations had envisaged. By 2050 its population will have doubled, to 2.5 billion. There will be ten times more young Africans than young Europeans… If this mass of several hundred million young people is allowed to travel north, then Europe will soon come under horrendous pressure.

“Furthermore, the majority of immigrants will arrive from the Islamic world. If everything continues in this way, then the cities of Europe will clearly have majority Muslim populations – and London will not be an outlier, but a pioneer. If things continue like this, our culture, our identity and our nations as we know them will cease to exist. Our worst nightmares will have become reality. The West will fall, as Europe is occupied without realising it. Will this be a vindication of the views of those who think that civilisations are not killed, but commit suicide? Many believe that even if all this does take place, it will all take a long time. I think that those who believe this are mistaken. Analyses look ahead as far as 2050, and people of my age will reach their eighties at around that time. In other words, we – not to mention our children and grandchildren – may be able to see with our own eyes what direction the future of our Western world has taken.”

Anyone of European heritage who does not see this as worrisome either has their head in the sand and is practicing an advanced form of denial, or is culturally masochistic, if not suicidal. But the problem is not just from external forces; it is from internal (to Europe) forces, as well – or even more critically:

“I must also say a few words about the dispute between Western and Central Europe. It seems that the courses of development of these two parts of Europe have diverged… The great old European nations in Western Europe have become immigrant countries. Day by day their cultural foundations are being transformed, the population raised in a Christian culture is declining, and the major cities are undergoing Islamisation. And I have to say that I cannot see the political forces with the will and ability to stop these processes – let alone, horribile dictu, reverse them. In terms of my message it is now irrelevant whether this is the consequence of the weakness of liberal democracies, the repercussions of an earlier colonial and slave-trading past, or the greedy, subversive actions of a George Soros-style empire; the facts remain. Whatever the reason, Western Europe has become an immigrant zone and a world of mixed populations; and, unlike central Europe, it is heading in the direction of a completely new development future. This is bad news for us. This means that Islamic civilisation – which has always seen its mission as the conversion of Europe to what it calls the true faith – will knock on Central Europe’s door not only from the South, but also from the West.

However absurd it seems, the situation is that now the danger is threatening us from the West. This danger to us comes from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris. They want us to adopt their policies: the policies that made them immigrant countries and that opened the way for the decline of Christian culture and the expansion of Islam. They want us to also accept migrants and to also become countries with mixed populations. Earlier they said that they expect this from us because what is alien is beautiful, a mixed population is better, and because the true European does not defend such obsolete mediaeval concepts as homeland and religion. Today these voices are perhaps quieter. Now the fashionable mantra is that we must become like them because this expresses solidarity. We must clearly state that we stand in solidarity with those Western Europeans and leaders who want to save their homelands and Christian culture, and we have no solidarity with those who want to abandon those things. We shall never express solidarity with those European leaders who want to take Europe into a post-Christian and post-national era.

But the news is not all bad. There is hope:

“We must clearly and forthrightly state that we do not see the battle that we’re fighting as a hopeless one; in fact as we see it, we now stand on the brink of victory. The countries of the Visegrád Four are unwavering. The Orthodox world stands firm, and it seems that Croatia has come to its senses. Austria has now turned in the direction of patriotism and Christianity. In Bavaria a spiritual and political resistance has developed under the leadership of the CSU. Perhaps it is not too late. And we await, we keenly anticipate, the result of the Italian election, and with it the turning-point which will see the return to government of common sense, Italian national and cultural identity – and Silvio Berlusconi. Forza Italia!”

Thank God for the Visegrád nations! And others are beginning to join them. Perhaps it is not yet too late. I am awaiting anxiously the results of the Italian elections…

Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev – Aleteia

Participating in a London conference on the topic of “The Christian Future of Europe,” Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, head of the External Relations Departments of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, spoke on September 22 at the Russian Embassy to Great Britain, and his talk was something of a warning to the Churches of the West.

Source: Russian Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev – Aleteia

Excerpts from Metropolitan Hilarion’s speech:

“I would like to remind you all that in Russia before 1917 nobody ever proposed that the collapse of a centuries-old Christian empire would happen and that it would be replaced by an atheistic totalitarian regime. And even when that did happen, few believed that it was serious and for long.

“The modern-day decline of Christianity in the western world may be compared to the situation in the Russian Empire before 1917.

“The revolution and the dramatic events which followed it have deep spiritual, as well as social and political, reasons. Over many years the aristocracy and intelligentsia had abandoned the faith, and were then followed by common people.”

He also added,

“And when half a century after the creation of the European Union its constitution was being written, it would have been natural for the Christian Churches to expect that the role of Christianity as one of the European values to have been included in this document, without encroaching upon the secular nature of the authorities in a unified Europe.

“But, as we know, this did not happen.

“The European Union, when writing its constitution, declined to mention its Christian heritage even in the preamble of the document.

“I firmly believe that a Europe which has renounced Christ will not be able to preserve its cultural and spiritual identity.”

I fear he is correct.