The opposition claims – along so-called “professional” arguments – that increasing gold reserves is an antiquated, unproductive and ultimately unexplainable move. Meanwhile, the average citizen, who has learned since childhood that gold means stability, security and reduces risks to a minimum cannot understand why this would be a bad thing.
But those with a bit of common sense realize what the problem is: its exactly the fact that gold offers security and serious stability. This is what has triggered the anger of those who regard national security in Europe an unnecessary luxury and would rather see it gone from the cozy nation-states.
They immediately attack such decisions and would rather like to see massive foreign currency loans and an overall increase in debt levels. At the prompting of an ageing billionaire they would even have the European Union incur billions of euros in debt to bring in and host millions of migrants.
It is quite a coincidence that Martin Schulz, the disgraced former leader of the European left has said that what “refugees” bring is far more valuable than gold. So it is not an unreasonable assumption that if Hungary took in migrants instead of increasing its gold reserves, international attacks against it would diminish.
But Hungary does not wish to follow that path and – as many other central banks do – will rather invest in gold. And despite the wishes of the globalists, Hungarian economic indicators are strong and forecasts indicate that it will remain in good health.
It seems like the retrograde label they so love to stick on the conservative side is rather more appropriate to those who preach progress but are bent on undermining security in order to grab power in the ensuing chaos, without the need for elections.