Europe is Threatened by a Transformation to the Point of Being of Unrecognizable

The following speech about the European “migration” crisis by Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary was originally published on Andreas Unterberger’s website. JLH has kindly translated the text from the German.

Note: Mr. Orban’s speech was given in Hungarian, and the text was then translated into German. This translation from the German may differ somewhat from other direct English translations, if any such are extant: — The not quite non-political diary and the many not quite boring partner pages

Europe is Threatened by a Transformation to the Point of Being of Unrecognizable

August 4, 2015
author: Viktor Orban

A speech by the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, at the 26th student encampment of the Free Summer University in Bálványos is worthy of appearing here as a guest commentary, since — apart from the British prime minister — there is no other politician in all of Europe who tells it like it is. It is really heartening (even though clearly formulated from the Hungarian perspective). It is miles removed from anything Austrian politicians utter.

Here is the majority of what Orban said, translated:

A year ago I said that we live in times when anything can happen, and I still say so today. Who would have thought that Europe would not be capable of protecting its own borders against unarmed refugees? Who would have thought, for instance, that things could go so far in France that the leader of the Islamic community there would publicly propose to the French state that it leave its depopulated Christian churches to his community, since they would be happy to turn them into Islamic houses of worship? Who would have thought that the United States of America would be wiretapping leading German politicians?

All of this has happened, and yet the sky is not falling. And who would have thought that we Europeans would act as if nothing had happened, and continue friendly free-trade negotiations with a partner who probably knew our negotiating positions before we did?

The uncertainty of the future can mislead us into pondering the nature of the political future, or to put it more precisely, the natural history of being able to recognize the future. We tend to imagine the future and/or the study of the future as does a ship’s captain sailing into the unknown. We stand at the prow of the ship, telescope in hand, and use it to reconnoiter the unfamiliar coast. In this endeavor, the captain has an advantage, i.e., the one who finds the future first will be the one with the sharper eyes or the better telescope. As if the future is somewhere out there like a yet undiscovered continent, just waiting for us to find it.

But, dear friends, the future is of an entirely different nature. That is, the most important characteristic of the future is that it is not yet complete, does not yet exist and will only occur after this moment. So it makes no sense whatsoever to strain our eyes looking forward to discover it. It would be far more rewarding to think of the future as does the rower in a regatta, that is, with his back to the direction of travel. That way, you see what lies behind you, and what gradually comes into your field of vision. Thus, the bow of the boat is being steered in the direction of the future as the coast appears in our view.

We should therefore deduce the future from the entirety of what we already know. This means that pondering the future is not a contest that is about seeing as far as possible into the future, but rather about understanding the past better. The winner in that enterprise is the one who gains a deeper understanding of the past and can more swiftly and courageously comprehend its lessons. At the same time, this represents the starting point for political leadership and planning. That is good news, since to understand things we need, first of all, our minds — that is our reason — and human reason is equally distributed in the world. In this respect, every person is certain of having more of it than others. When we think about the future of the European Union, and our own future within it, we must first consider the past of the European Union.

Despite all of our sharp and critical comments, we must record that the European Union, as it is constituted, has accomplished its own outstanding achievement in respect to peace, development and prosperity. It may well be that we owe the peace that lasted from the end of WWII until 1990 to the Americans and Russians, who were, in our stead, making the decisions about European affairs. But after 1990 this success was without doubt our own, European success. Regardless of any worry lines that crease our foreheads, this fact cannot be extinguished, even by the events that have occurred since 2008.

Let us be clear: The recent increase in folk migration* has occurred as a result of political processes. North African lands were previously protectorates of Europe, which accepted masses of people who had arrived there from internal Africa. In this respect, honored ladies and gentlemen, we must note that the serious threat is not at all from the war-torn regions, but from interior Africa. This barrier has suffered a spectacular collapse because of the disintegration of the North African states, and can no longer protect Europe from these enormous human masses. And this gave rise in short order to a problem of unexpected dimensions.

I completely agree with former President Sarkozy, who said on French television a few days ago that the present wave of folk migration* is only the beginning. At this moment, 1 billion 100 million people are living in Africa, of whom more than one-half are under 25 years of age. Sarkozy is of the opinion that, within a short time, hundreds of millions of them will have no shelter and no access to sufficient water and food. For which reason, they will be starting to move, and indeed, following those who are already on the move.

We can conclude from this that for us today, what is at stake is Europe, the lifestyle of European citizens, European values, the survival or disappearance of European nations, and more precisely formulated, their transformation beyond recognition. Today, the question is not merely in what kind of a Europe we Hungarians would like to live, but whether everything we understand as Europe will exist at all.

The answer is clear. We want Europe to continue to belong to the Europeans. That is what we wish. Why this can only be a wish is based on the fact that the intention of others is required. However, there is something else that we do not merely wish, but definitely want. We want to preserve the land of Hungary, which is exclusively dependent on us, as a Hungarian country. Among those here, this statement is a truism, but must nonetheless be emphasized, because there are others who think entirely differently. It is equally incredible and spiritually and intellectually incomprehensible for us that there are actually those who think differently.

The European Left, dear friends, does not see a source of danger in the problem of immigration, but an opportunity. The Left has for time-out-of-mind regarded nations and national identity with suspicion. The Left takes the stance — just follow what they say — that national frameworks could finally be weakened and even eliminated by the escalation of immigration, thereby realizing one of the goals left unachieved from the historical perspective of the Left. At first glance it seems completely absurd, but getting a little closer to Hungary, it is possible to determine that it may be no coincidence that the Hungarian Left in 2004 was stirring things up against Hungarians living abroad, while today they welcome illegal immigrants to Hungary with open arms, pressing them to their bosoms. These people, these politicians, just don’t like Hungarians, and precisely because they are Hungarians. Just as the central offices of finance and policy in Brussels are intent on dissolving national structures, weakening national sovereignty and extinguishing national identities. Just imagine, ladies and gentlemen, what Hungary would be if the Left had formed a government in 2014. To be sure, the idea is shocking, but let us imagine it. After one or two years, we would no longer recognize our homeland. Our country would look like a gigantic refugee camp, like a kind of Central European Marseille. We must also ultimately acknowledge that the ever-increasing immigration is connected with the West’s fundamentalism in the area of the human rights of all people, regardless of the immigrants’ reasons for leaving their homelands. Of course, there are genuine refugees, but the clear majority of immigrants are those who simply want to enjoy the advantages of the European lifestyle.

However, since so many people could never reach the area of the EU legally, more and more people are taking on the dangers inherent in illegal immigration, and in future there will be more and more of them. And since the EU has principles, but no sovereignty or borders, it is not possible to react appropriately to the new situation.

Brussels cannot protect Europeans against the masses of illegal immigrants, as has been pointedly remarked by the former German finance minister: “The problem with Europe is similar to kicking a food can uphill, and then being surprised that it always rolls back down.” The European Union began as an economic alliance, later also became a political alliance and was intended to function as a sovereign power, but for that to happen, national sovereignty had to be even further restricted. As the joke runs in Budapest: “First the direction was good, but everything was done wrong; then the direction was wrong, but things were done well.”

In accordance with its vocation, there were genuine solutions to genuine problems from the EU: peace instead of war, a unified inner market instead of a fragmented market, and the inclusion of the poorest instead of leaving them by the wayside. In addition, the EU has also proven to be pragmatic and relatively flexible. We owe this to its unique organizational solutions, but it is now obvious that something has gone wrong.

Instead of genuine solutions, Europe developed an ideology which no longer examines a problem in and of itself, but only to determine whether a particular solution would weaken or strengthen its ideological system. In the process, Europe itself has become an idée fixe. So in case something seems sensible and successful, but simultaneously strengthens national sovereignty, it is seen as reprehensible or even hostile; and the more successful it becomes, so much more is it regarded as a danger. That, in a nutshell, is the Hungarian Story.

What we Hungarians are doing is without doubt successful, but since this process does not accord with the ideological perceptions of Brussels — that is, strengthens rather than weakens Hungarian national and governmental sovereignty — it is rejected. But it is for exactly that reason, ladies and gentlemen, that the EU will have no luck in the case of the Greek crisis, since it is a practical problem which must have a practical solution.

We Hungarians are interested in a strong Union and are of the opinion that Europe will become strong through successful solutions. The political and intellectual force of the European mainstream, however, is of the opinion that Europe will become strong if it is possible to cobble together a United States of Europe. Looking at our continent in this way, we Hungarians are, in effect, followers of de Gaulle.

The true nature — not the structure — of the United States of America demonstrates that it has no independent national bodies, for which reason we cannot take it as a model. The true nature of Europe, on the contrary, is that it comprises several nations, so an attempt to create a European vision of the USA would be sheer nonsense. The greatness of America does not reside in the fact that there are no nations within it, but that it is regularly able to find successful solutions.

Therefore, if the European Union wants to be successful, it should find its own functional solutions. Whether it will be in a position to do that in the future, we do not yet know. What we do know is that since 2008, that is, since the beginning of the economic crisis, Europe has not had these solutions. Since 2008, there has been the impression that the European Union has repeatedly expected different results, but is constantly doing the same thing.

Many people still remember that the first country to accept an international bailout package as a result of the 2008 crisis was not Greece, but Hungary. After 2010, we have succeeded in coming to the point that Hungary is one of the member states — one of the few — whose national debt in percentage of GNP has not grown, but declined.

If we wish to fittingly evaluate and acknowledge Hungary’s efforts, we should keep a watchful eye on Greece. We are proud that we have repaid our debt to the IMF ahead of time. And of the support we received from the EU, there is still a small portion to repay, which we will do on the due date at the beginning of 2016.

Note too, please, that Hungary at no time asked for preferential treatment or postponement. To some, that is weakness; to others, it is a virtue. I am one of the latter. It is also noteworthy in this connection, that this took place in such a fashion that the rate of growth of the Hungarian GNP was outstanding among members of the Union. Dear friends, it is a rarity in Hungarian economic history — and unique in recent decades — that the key numbers for internal and external economic balance could be improved simultaneously, while the economy has grown during the same time period. We also corrected two errors of the past. We redeemed private credits in foreign currencies, thus avoiding a financial collapse. We also succeeded in restoring to the community previously privatized strategic assets, and this again demonstrates one of the key issues of Hungarian national sovereignty.

By saying, as I did, that the subject of illegal immigration is like a drop of water from the ocean — that is, it contains all the world — I represent the view that the most important measures in coming years can be read from this drop. We should discuss here four questions which will become important across Europe in times to come, and for the most part will occupy us in Hungary, too.

The first question concerns the problem of national identity. Thirty years ago, numerous Europeans saw the answer to Europe’s social problems in so-called multiculturalism. Here, in this gathering, I need not go into the differences between the concepts “multicultural” and “multiethnic”. At present, an increasing number of people see multiculturalism not as a solution, but as a source of problems. Several European states have decided in the last thirty years to take in great numbers of people with varying civilizational backgrounds. I believe that it is not our place to evaluate this experiment, or to comment on the results of this experiment. We can only say — and we should do so decisively: In consideration of these results, we do not wish to repeat this experiment on ourselves. And we have every right to say that.

The second question we must discuss openly and straightforwardly is that there is a clear connection between the influx of illegal immigrants to Europe and the expansion of terrorism. It is interesting that this connection is seen as apparent in Anglo-Saxon countries, while others dispute it. On a visit to Hungary recently, one of the leading US officials for public safety declared that the connection between those two factors is apparent. It is apparent that we cannot filter the enemy terrorists out of such a gigantic mass of people. And. ladies and gentlemen, we must also agree with British Prime Minister Cameron, who explained the situation this way: We will not solve this problem if we do not stop these people at the start, when they are leaving their own country.

The third problem we must deal with — next to multiculturalism and terrorism — is of an economic nature. The experiences of the West show clearly that illegal immigrants contribute to the rise of unemployment. This fact has been apparent at least since 2008, when Europe began battling a continuing economic crisis. For most European countries — since we cannot all be like Germany — it is precisely the high unemployment figure that represents the greatest strain. The arrival of new masses of people in countries where high unemployment is already present precipitates even greater unemployment. The connection is as simple as two times two.

And finally, allow me to address something that is always avoided out of shame caused by political correctness. According to police statistics in Western countries, what stands out is that, where illegal immigrants live, the proportion of criminality rises drastically and the security of citizens decreases in equal measure. According to UN statistics, Sweden is second only to Lesotho, South Africa in number of sexual crimes. According to a report of the British parliament from 2013, the number of convicted Muslims sitting in British penal institutions has risen 300% — threefold, in the last fifteen years. In Italy, in 2012, approximately one fourth of crimes were committed by immigrants. And the statistical reports could go on and on.

In summary, we can observe that illegal immigration is threatening for Hungary and Europe in the same way. It represents a danger to our shared values, our common culture and even to our diversity, and simultaneously threatens the security of Europeans, rattling our capacity to stabilize our economic outcomes. Hungary has tried, as long as it was possible, to use measures that take the interests of all of its neighbors into account.

Today, however, our country is caught in a pincer grip — not only are waves of folk migration* repeatedly coming to us from the south; now the idea has crystallized in the countries to our west to send back to Hungary illegals who passed over our borders and into these countries to the west. That puts pressure on us from two directions — from the south and from the west. The truth is that we cannot withstand this pressure.

This question of folk migration is both a question of reason and morality and of the heart and intellect and is, therefore, extremely complex, profound and emotionally disturbing. Such questions can only be dealt with in a society when the community is able to develop a consensus. This purpose was served by the national consultation on immigration, the results of which I would now like to make known.

More than two-thirds of Hungarians consider the question of the expansion of terrorism relevant to their own lives. Three-quarters believe that illegal immigrants endanger their jobs and livelihoods. Four-fifths of Hungarians consider the policies of Brussels in regard to questions of immigration to have failed, for which reason new basic approaches are considered to be necessary. Approximately four-fifths of Hungarians support the government — in contrast to the laissez-faire policy of Brussels — in passing stricter regulations to stop illegal immigration.

In this respect, Hungarians expect regulations which make it possible that the persons who cross the Hungarian border illegally may be taken into custody and deported as soon as possible. According to 80% of those polled, illegal immigrants should pay for their own expenses while they are here. Even if this sounds harsh and represents a resolute stand, this is nonetheless Hungary’s position.

Finally, and more important than all the other points, the overwhelming majority of Hungarians — 95% — believe that instead of immigration, Hungarian families and children born here should be supported. It is easy to see that Hungarians have not lost the ability to think clearly. The results of this consultation show that Hungarians do not want illegal immigrants and do not wish to participate in the spiritual rampage of the European Left. That is what the country of Hungary and its people have decided. This means, too, that we intend to remain a secure and stable land as well as a unified and even-tempered nation in the uncertain world that surrounds us. I would probably be right to say that anything is possible in the world, today, but I would also be right to think that, to the contrary, we would all prefer that Hungary remain a land in which not everything is possible.

*   Translator’s Note:

Yes, the German word used here was “Völkerwanderung.” Cf. my comment on “What Kind of War is This?”, GoV, August 19, 2015:

I noticed a long time ago that the great [Germanic and Celtic] folk movements described in German scholarship were called Voelkerwanderungen — folk migrations. But on maps made for Classics teachers, they were called the Barbarian Invasions. Depends on your point of view.

33 thoughts on “Europe is Threatened by a Transformation to the Point of Being of Unrecognizable

  1. “A speech by the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, at the 26th student encampment of the Free Summer University in Bálványos is worthy of appearing here as a guest commentary, since — apart from the British prime minister — there is no other politician in all of Europe who tells it like it is. ”

    Britain hasn’t got a Prime Minister “who tells it like it is.” The author must be thinking of somewhere else. David Cameron is an out and out liar. His “This has nothing to do with Islam” after each and every Muslim atrocity has become a joke.

  2. “Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is trying to falsely portray it as inevitable.”

    Coudenhove-Kalergi is considered the “grandfather” of the EU. This is what he said:

    “The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear …..The Eurasian-negroid race of the future,… will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals.”

    Wake up, people of Europe. You are being betrayed.

  3. An interesting speech.

    “On a visit to Hungary recently, one of the leading US officials for public safety declared that the connection between [the influx of illegal immigrants to Europe and the expansion of terrorism] is apparent.” Who was this US official? And what exactly did he say? Was he referring to illegal immigration into Europe, or into the US?

    “[T]he number of convicted Muslims sitting in British penal institutions has risen 300% — threefold, in the last fifteen years.”
    An increase of 300% is not a threefold increase, but a quadrupling, a fourfold increase.

    • Don’t agree.
      % stands for 1/100
      Therefore 300% = 300*1/100 = 3
      A ‘300% increase’ is a ‘3-times increase’ or ‘three fold increase’
      A quantity that increases by 300% will have reached 400% of the original level or quadrupled, but it is not correct to say it has increased four-fold.
      I think the linguistic confusion is also occurs with misuse of ‘Repeat again’, when only repeat is meant.

  4. What a magnificent speech! No war cry, no call for revolution, just the plain honest to God Truth, and a Truth that must have the nincompoops in Brussels roiling with displeasure that their Collective Dam has now sprung more leaks for liberty than a sieve has holes!

    Fightback against the Totalitarians is on the rise, but who would have picked Hungary to get the ball rolling?

    • Ha ha! Are you serious?

      Politically when Hungary sneezes: Europe catches a cold. The first Communist country in Europe proper, was in Hungary. The first Fascist regime in Europe, in response to the former, was in Hungary. There are deep historical reasons for its trailblazing, related to how the nation ended up after WWI.

      Political scientists brave enough to not call Europe’s new political directions “far-Right” have called this sort of new politics “national populism.”

      While Europe has been obsessed with the regrettable lack of success of Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, creeping up and then falling back in the polls, Viktor Orbán has been leading his country since 2010 thanks to two stonking super-majority election victories!

      He was taking a big slide in the polls at the start of this year, because he’s radically downsizing the welfare state (he is obsessed with bringing the national debt down), and is more than a little corrupt. Young Hungarians with any talent emigrate because there is too much nepotism and not enough growth in Hungary.

      Nevertheless, though our Viktor is the bette noir of the European Union, their idiocy keeps coming to his electoral rescue. The “migrant crisis” is the latest example.

      How the Left worldwide and many in Hungary coruscated the “national consultation” but the leap in illegal crossing numbers has put him right on the money, again.

      Domestically, Orbán’s a bumbler but geopolitically there’s no smarter fox in the European geopolitical hen house. There’s no profound reason for this, other than the fact that he’s a doer by nature, not an ideologue or a PR obsessed political identikit man.

      If he remains in sufficient health to stay on, baring accident, it’s hard not to see him winning another term in 2018, with another huge win. But he has deep problems too, there’s no natural successor to him, and though he promotes young people, he mostly surrounds himself with his 89er chums.

      Which means there’s no strength in depth to his cabinet, capable of gaining the right experience. If Orbi catches more than a cold, Hungary is in deep doo doo.

      • You believe my comment to be funny Pierre?

        Orban has outlined in his speech the problems that confront the EU, more specifically Hungary, and in a general sense, the entire West. Yet you denigrate what he has stated because of what you perceive to be his human weaknesses? Now I find that funny!

        What strong leader of history has not had their own foibles laid bare by those who wished to publicly denigrate them for their own political purposes while completely ignoring the much good they have done?

        I am well aware of Hungary’s military and political history, particularly that of the 20th Century, but Hungary is a small landlocked country that has had to ally itself with the bigger players (Austria/Germany/EU) through necessity to survive against perceived enemies and has never been in a position militarily to stand alone.

        When a country has borders with many other countries that are not always friendly, then there has to be found an ally that will offer protection in times of unrest. Currently, the EU offers that protection but at what cost? Orban’s speech lays bare what the majority of EU countries apart from Holland are always mute on – and that should be applauded regardless of one’s personal perceptions of the person uttering them.

        Your beef seems to be with the messenger due to your own perceptions of him. In the times we all now find ourselves in, I would suggest you give the messenger the time to convey the message, to listen and to heed the message, and to stay away from the messengers politics, because at this most dire time in history we need all the assistance we can muster to see us through the troubles that have been brought to us.

  5. Well done. I have “heard” of Mr. Orban and he seems to be somewhat looked down upon by the “liberals” but reading this speech impresses me — he is intelligent, articulate, and interested in keeping Hungary Hungarian — this is a reasonable point of view.

    Only in America can we take in “refugees” and still maintain our identity. Smaller countries can’t do this — already France is losing her identity and Germany has already lost it.

    Yep, it’s another barbarian invasion. People who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

    I am of Hungarian descent myself but an American citizen.

    • “Only in America can we take in “refugees” and still maintain our identity.”

      I’m not so sure that’s true. I live in a neighborhood that’s heavily Hispanic…they maintain their lawns and houses (kind of) and are cordial but distant. Yet, their children all speak Spanish and I doubt if they have any idea at all of American history or principles.

      You can go to a city like Chicago, on Dearborn street, for instance, and see the very heavy proportion of immigrants organized by nationality. My own personal view is that a certain number of immigrants is fine, but when you overwhelm the area with immigrants, the American identity gets lost. It’s simply a matter of dilution. The US can absorb more immigrants, numerically, without losing its identity, but the mechanics of dilution work the same in the US as in Europe.l

  6. All those forces we though we had defeated are back with a vengeance. Muslims, Nazis, Communists. And not to forget the very real prospect of civil war. The French are now admitting that the religion of peace and it’s unknown millions of Muslims in France have been stacking up and stocking up and stinking up on armaments in their French barracks (mosques/community centers and no go areas. (In the vast open bordered French countryside too no doubt.) And that seemingly is only what the French reluctantly admit to. God knows what else they have found and are searching for that is ‘top secret’. The mind boggles – with fear and trepidation? This could never ever happen in the U.S. or Canada?

    • National Socialism (Nazi) and Communism have never been defeated militarily or ideologically. Islam has had its defeats, but the ideology has never been subdued by the victor into actually changing the mindset to something more human friendly. Like Islam, and as you comment, they are all back with a vengeance.

  7. Nice that he gets right to the point: the dark sinister clammy icy eldritch horror of America’s wiretapping of German politicians.

  8. So weird reading a speech by a European leader that tells the truth and is not full of PC excrement and lies. A remarkable outpouring for a leader of an EU member country, and to *students*, who in western Europe are in political matters a bunch of brainwashed cretins. Thanks to GoV and the translator for giving us this small shaft of light in the darkness. Hungary was the maverick in the Eastern Bloc, and it is clearly carrying on the tradition now that it is faced by an even more dangerous, stupid and intrusive political regime than the USSR.

    • You’ll probably find that most of the former Eastern Bloc thinks like the Hungarian Prime Minister, on this topic 🙂 (students included).

      Certainly in Poland, almost all comments – not only in newspapers, but also chatting among friends and family – are of a similar persuasion… the typical user comment on a newspaper comments section (even a liberal/leftist one) reads:

      “I’ve worked in Britain. I’ve seen it [multiculturalism] in action. I don’t want it in Poland.”

      And then, it shoots up to the top of the most-recommended list…

      The EU-paid propaganda-mongers will have their work cut out, if they want to ever convert Eastern Euros to a PC line of thinking.

      • Thanks for that response. Actually, I have long wondered what East Europeans really think about sucker countries like Britain. Here they just keep their heads down and take the money and the jobs (though the laziness of the English is the main problem here). Could you post a link of the Polish comment you mention?

        • Here’s a typical section:


          The website in question belongs to the publishers of “Gazeta Wyborcza” – the foremost liberal-Left daily in Poland, on a European level aligned with the Guardian. And the top comment reads:

          “They attack lorries, break locks, jump on trains, force their way through the border etc. If an ethnic European were to do the same, he’d be immediately in handcuffs, taken to jail or shot. This is the truth. Banditism by Africans goes unpunished. And this is “equality”? A native – repression. But an immigrant can break in, steal. He’s allowed to do this.”

          The second comment reads – “From this, it ‘s clear that the Muslims have already conquered France. And now, through the tunnel, they’re trying to conquer England :)”

          This is just a small sample. As for the precise comment I quoted earlier – I would need to search a little more, as there are so many threads on the topic. (the vast majority, in the spirit of the comments above).

          But as a Pole living in England, I can tell you that all Poles I’ve spoken to, or heard discussing this issue, thinks the same way (bar one notable exception). And it’s an issue which is often.discussed… As many older Poles don’t use the internet, many of the online comments would be by younger readers (the many “LOLs” and emoticons in the thread above perhaps also being an indication of this). And I’ve read on a few occasions, that “far-right” parties in Poland get most of their support from Poles in England. (and also, from younger voters generally)

          Their leaders come to London to campaign before elections – I myself attended a meeting in London last year with Janusz Korwin-Mikke, an eccentric MEP whose presence in the EU parliament pleased Nigel Farage (he once said that compared to Korwin-Mikke, he [Nigel] seems moderate!). The meeting was meant to be in a restaurant, but so many people came that we made our way to Shepherd’s Bush Green. And, with a crowd of around 200 around him, he warned that “your daughters will be in Harems”, while also speaking at length on his multitude of other theories, including a long critique of Nazi Germany. (None of which stopped the Sunday Times from once calling him a “Holocaust denier”, for once asking – “show me the proof that Hitler knew about the Holocaust”… although he never denied that the Holocaust took place).

    • It pains me to read the typical Guardianista commentary. They really need to foot the blame for all of this. Their thinking is what is paving the way for our decline and this ‘migrant crisis’ is hastening it for them, much to their delight.

  9. The anti-freedom, evil, devouring, power hungry monster known as the EU and British and European leaders seek to utterly annihilate our people, our nations, our culture, religion and politics and replace it with ISLAM. 56 Muslim nations in the world is NOT enough for Muslim leaders, the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the EU, UN, and US. The dirty DESTROYERS are successfully rapidly transforming Europe and Britain into Eurafrica and Eurabia.

    Our evil traitor leaders have allowed Muslim imports to wage massive rape jihad in Britain and Europe for decades on our non-Muslim females. An ACT of WAR against our people. Instead of responding to this cruel and terrible war against our females by permanently ending Muslim immigration and deporting Muslims, our evil leaders continue massive Muslim immigration/invasion in order to increase the violent Muslim RAPE WAR. There’s a special place reserved in hell for our evil leaders and the Muslim gang rapist/sex slavers.

    Hundreds of thousands of young non-Muslim British girls, many only 11 and 12 years old have been gang raped, horribly tortured and forced into prostitution and sex slavery by dirty, demonic, inhuman, sex slaver Muslim monsters – the Spawn of Satan.

    One distraught father discovered where the filth were keeping his little girl. The father was arrested by UK police for trying to rescue his beloved child from the Muslim sex slaver monsters.

    The cries and prayers of the sex slave victims in Iraq, Syria and Britain fill the heavens. The earth is soaked with their tears.
    Bible, Psalm 56:8 Put my tears in Your bottle. Are they not in Your book?

    Every non-Muslim nation on earth has a MORAL obligation to do EVERYTHING in their power to rescue the desperate sex slaves in Iraq, Syria and Britain.

    • Not only are they raping and making life miserable for each of these native girls. What is more, is that they are diminishing the “breeding potential” of the natives.

  10. Take a look at how the former Christian countries have been destroyed and laid to waste, one by one, since the 7th century.

    Then, take a look at Europe today.

    Compare to Qaradawi’s statement, “This time, not with the sword”

    And, what do you get?

  11. “Europe is Threatened by a Transformation to the Point of Being of Unrecognizable”

    I think that’s the idea !

    Looking forward to reading this article tonight.

  12. “In accordance with its vocation, there were genuine solutions to genuine problems from the EU: peace instead of war, a unified inner market instead of a fragmented market, and the inclusion of the poorest instead of leaving them by the wayside. In addition, the EU has also proven to be pragmatic and relatively flexible. We owe this to its unique organizational solutions, but it is now obvious that something has gone wrong…

    So in case something seems sensible and successful, but simultaneously strengthens national sovereignty, it is seen as reprehensible or even hostile; and the more successful it becomes, so much more is it regarded as a danger…

    The political and intellectual force of the European mainstream, however, is of the opinion that Europe will become strong if it is possible to cobble together a United States of Europe. ”

    On thinking about it, the EU was created partly as a tool of out-and-out socialism. But, it also was a response to the mass self-slaughter of Europeans due to the nationalist passions of World War I, and to a lesser extent, World War II.

    Modern society has changed to the point that virtue and courage are no longer rewarded by either financial or childbearing advantage. Socialism has shifted resources from not only the productive, but the soldiers, so that neither the politicians nor the electorate value survival or the ability to maintain an identity. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Sweden, the earliest and most socialist of European countries, has been the most vulnerable to the invasion of Muslims.

    The disadvantages of national borders and currency concerning trade and commerce can easily be remedied, especially in the age of computers and distributed databases. Currency differences and the mechanics of passports and visas for intra-European travel can be handled with only a small expenditure of resources. National borders, on the upside, provide the incentive and means to maintain a real identity, and to erect real borders and barriers to free internal migration.

    A nationalist Europe would probably be more vulnerable to another nationalist war. Make no mistake: a fratricidal war would for sure open Europe up to even more massive immigration and possibly conquest, in the same way that the wars between the Persians and the Byzantines opened Turkey and the Middle East to the invading Arab armies that evolved Islam as their glue.

  13. I can’t believe how dangerous this immigration storm is to the entire world. No EU nation is going to let thousands of folks die of starvation or without shelter. This means that their currency and productivity has to be swirling through these efforts and away from their normal economy. The ECB will have to allow money printing or bond buying…same thing. The value of the Euro will fall. The GDP (=income) of the EU will now reflect and service the needs of everyone producing plus all the non-productive new comers. I.e. the money supply per capita will be less. This means that, on average, everyone in the EU will be poorer. Eventually people will have to do without: not enough housing; not enough food or clothes. Europe will have willingly become a part of the third world by this self-immolation.

    And, because the world is all connected, a sick EU makes us all ill. Eg other nations are going to pull their investments of capital from new and old businesses in Europe. There are dozens of ramifications to a sudden
    poverty of Europe.

    The only way to help all these refugees is to show them how to create wealth themselves at home or to miraculously get them to assimilate, get educated, and create capital themselves in their new homes. But they show no signs of wanting to do this.

  14. so many comments, so little awareness.

    the viktator is looking for (and finding) new ways to scare people into a nationalist frenzy. and he has you dupes to assist him.
    he cares nothing for europe.
    he cares nothing for hungary.
    he cares about power. and if he can frighten his people enough, he will stay in power, which is his (Putin-like) plan.
    europe has not one single country that replaces its own population. no immigration, no growth. no growth, no future.
    i’d admonish y’all to pay attention, but it won’t matter soon anyway. the threat from islam will diminish as the end of cheap energy sends us back to the stoneage.
    (please don’t tell me oil is cheap – you have no clue if that’s your reply)
    good luck to all – you’ll need it.

  15. How comforting to read some straightforward, truthful, common-sense but perspicacious analysis by the political leader of a European country. I especially like his “rower in a regatta” analogy.

    Plainly it is countries like Hungary and the Czech republic, probably Poland and the Baltic states, which will be the more livable place in Europe by 2040. Or 2030. If I were a French, Belgian, Dutch, German or Swedish national (or living in Britain) I’d be inclined to move to Prague or Budapest.

    A pair of my recent former neighbors, a British couple, had the foresight to buy a couple of apartments in Budapest many years ago, after their 5 year stint in Australia didn’t work in career terms, they moved to Budapest. They have no intention of living in Britain ever again.

    • How are they finding life in a city suddenly swamped by “migrants”?

      I read somewhere, that Budapest’s main stations are now dominated by the newcomers…

Comments are closed.