Viktor Orbán: “A Nation That is Not Capable of Reproducing Itself Does Not Deserve to Exist”

On January 23 Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave a speech at the 4th Lámfalussy Lectures conference in Budapest. Below is an excerpt from his talk; the entire speech has been subtitled, and is available here.

Many thanks to CrossWare for yet another mammoth effort of translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Transcript of the full speech (47 minutes; the above excerpt is from 33:36-38:36):

00:04   Deeply respected Mr. Governor and distinguished guests
00:08   of the conference, I thought a lot about
00:12   accepting the invitation to this conference.
00:16   … It is beyond dispute,
00:20   that the invitation by itself is an honour,
00:24   … but such world political events,
00:28   are happening …
00:32   couple of them were quoted here: Brexit,
00:36   a new American president with all its consequences.
00:40   In the shadows of such events,
00:44   If one were to speak sentences without a strong political content,
00:48   It would not be possible to talk about the future.
00:52   But this contains risks, and could even tip the conference out of balance
00:56   from its usual peaceful progress.
01:00   This is what I had to weigh, but finally, I accepted the invitation because,
01:04   first of all Mr. [Jacques de] Larosière — since the beginning of
01:08   the ’80s we followed his thoughts here in Hungary.
01:12   So a real legend has arrived here, and
01:16   to sit with him at the same table is by itself a great honor.
01:20   On the other hand, we have here also Mr Tian Guoli [Chairman of the Board, Bank of China],
01:24   who has been our friend for long years now,
01:28   in general, also but especially
01:32   in the opening to the East.
01:36   He is the one who at our frequent meetings
01:40   prunes back our overgrown
01:44   European self-assessment
01:48   by telling us those numbers,
01:52   which you were able hear from him, just before me.
01:56   I owe a great deal of gratitude to him, and I am honored
02:00   to be together with him today.
02:04   Additionally, the rise of China
02:08   brings our attention to a psychological problem here in Europe.
02:16   There is a saying that sounds simple or even primitive,
02:20   “What is, is possible.”
02:24   Europeans do not understand this.
02:28   At least when it is about China, they do not understand it.
02:32   Instead when we learn about what is happening in China,
02:36   We use a significant portion of our energy to explain
02:40   why it is not possible, what has happened in China.
02:44   Or if it is, then “it is temporary”, “has no basis for its existence”,
02:48   “this tempo cannot be sustained”, “there is such internal stress”,
02:52   “in Chinese society, it will fail politically”. So instead
02:56   we study, and understand, that what is exists: IT IS.
03:00   We need to explain to ourselves that all that is possible
03:04   in China, and ease ourselves backwards, so we might accept that fact and try to
03:08   learn from it, but we try to convince ourselves
03:12   that is not happening. So with the meeting with Mr Chairman here,
03:16   the meeting with Chairman Tian Guoli,
03:20   the meeting could save us from this European
03:24   problem. Dear ladies and gentlemen,
03:28   but the real deciding factor for accepting the invitation,
03:32   was the person of Professor [Alexandre] Lámfalussy.
03:36   because… as Mr. Larosière…
03:40   mentioned we remember a great man today,
03:44   who moreover was a fatherly friend
03:48   — and so remained — of Hungary, after
03:52   he had to flee from Hungary because of the Communists.
03:56   He had to flee to Belgium, but despite that
04:00   he remained Hungarian and he stayed a friend of Hungary,
04:04   because he was able to distinguish between the actual political regime
04:08   and the motherland, which is a virtue that is worth bowing our heads for.
04:12   Additionally he was a good man,
04:16   as you would hear said. We have saying in our culture,
04:20   that saying: “Peace on Earth for the people with goodwill,”
04:24   and Professor Lámfalussy was a person of good intentions,
04:28   and for this he received peace, love and respect from
04:32   everybody. If this has been not enough,
04:36   let me quote it here for you,
04:40   actually he was my colleague too — I am bragging now! —
04:44   He also worked with me as an advisor
04:48   alongside me; he was my supervisor,
04:52   in the intellectual meaning of the word.
04:56   I received his warnings about my youthful excesses,
05:00   “There will be trouble from this, Viktor!” he would say.
05:04   He was our messenger and our guarantor, too,
05:08   in the Western financial world.
05:12   We can be only grateful to him. Moreover,
05:16   we could learn from him too,
05:20   and it is worth to see some examples from his life,
05:24   and transplant them into our own lives.
05:28   He was an open man and this has exceptional significance,
05:32   in a Western democracy. In our own perception,
05:36   in our own — we could call it Hungarian or even Central European — perception,
05:40   a good democracy
05:44   is based on arguments, and we are a followers of
05:48   the debate-based democracy, but that
05:52   requires open people, who need open spirit
05:56   and a straight character.
06:00   And in Professor Lámfalussy both the open spirit and straight character were present,
06:04   so we could say he had the best qualities of our kind — the Hungarians —
06:08   he embodies our best virtues.
06:12   I could also learn it from him;
06:16   he even phrased it similarly: “In the end,
06:20   character always matters.” There are these hard intellectual
06:24   questions, which must be deliberated,
06:28   and that requires intellect. Let me note, that buying intellect
06:32   is certainly possible, especially if someone is a prime minister — end quote.
06:36   Because he can hire the best intellects, and “he will have a brain.”
06:40   It is that easy in our profession, much easier than in other occupations.
06:44   So there is the intellect and there are the hard
06:48   questions and the intellectual challenges, but in the end,
06:52   when the time comes to make a decision, said Professor Lámfalussy,
06:56   character always counts. And he continued his sentence,
07:00   “so, dear Viktor, you should also go once a year to a desert for a week
07:04   and walk! Like I do, too,” he said.
07:08   The professor kept up this custom, as long as his physical wellbeing allowed him,
07:12   The most important thing I learned from him
07:16   came from a provocative situation,
07:20   if the older ones still remember,
07:24   at the beginning of the ’90s.
07:28   Bloody and fierce
07:32   ideological battles were fought to decide what type
07:36   of character of the political system should have after communism: Liberal, Christian, or what kind,
07:40   Those were hard times, full of provocations, and the professor
07:44   — who was a faithful Christian — could not avoid, when he came home,
07:48   a question thrown at him
07:52   by an ill-mannered journalist:
07:56   “Are you a Christian?” Let’s note
08:00   the Christian rule that we do not ask such questions of each other.
08:04   So he asked this question, and the Professor’s answer
08:08   — since then I have been keeping it in my pocket or in my heart —
08:12   and I think the most proper response, so he said with utter calmness,
08:16   — to the question if he is a Christian —
08:20   “I try to be, but I am not always successful!”
08:24   Respected ladies and gentlemen,
08:28   those were the memories that in a Lámfalussy conference
08:32   I believe were worthy to
08:36   evoke. Nevertheless,
08:40   I do not believe that these circumstances would have provided the reason
08:44   to name this conference after Sándor Lámfalussy,
08:48   but we probably had better find the reason in the fact
08:52   that he is being remembered, as the father of the euro in Hungary…
08:56   Once when I
09:00   recommended him for an award, I wrote in the recommendation
09:04   that he is the man who is not world-famous only in Hungary.
09:08   Probably our guests do not understand this sentence,
09:12   but we Hungarians understand precisely what this means.
09:16   A Hungarian who was not just world-famous in Hungary!
09:20   and in his role of establishing the Euro
09:24   made it possible.
09:28   I am not sure he would have agreed to name an award after him,
09:32   Because he did not believe that he would be the father of the euro.
09:36   When I talked about this with him, he said of course there is much
09:40   work which needed to be done on this, but the truth is, for the euro
09:44   the knowledge of an economist was not really required, but
09:48   — it was very handy that it was available —
09:52   but a solid political will.
09:56   so the founder or parents of the euro may be found among economists,
10:00   but look among politicians of the time, and mostly Germany and France come to mind,
10:04   who distinguished themselves in that topic.
10:08   I asked him about how …
10:12   he had courage to advise
10:16   politicians to create a monetary union,
10:20   that do not include a fiscal and political union?
10:24   Did he think this might be a gamble?
10:28   He gave an astonishing answer:
10:32   In the end the politicians will admit that after the monetary union
10:36   they must create a fiscal and a political union.
10:40   This truly astonished me, because for such a historically large-scale venture
10:44   to be given to the discretion of the politicians is a very
10:48   hazardous undertaking. And it seems like time up until now
10:52   has not proven the Professor’s point, but rather mine, or our doubts.
10:56   Professor Larosière’s presentation was basically
11:00   about this issue. He essentially asked if are we going to have
11:04   enough discretion for the decision-makers
11:08   To make the necessary decisions, without which a monetary union
11:12   cannot continue to exist.
11:16   I do not know what the answer to that question is; I only know
11:20   that this is the largest question about the European future.
11:24   What I wanted to highlight from this little story,
11:28   what I could draw as conclusion, will sound like
11:32   it was from Professor Lámfalussy: we learned that the basis of
11:36   a successful economy is politics,
11:40   most importantly it is stability.
11:44   Respected ladies and gentlemen, a strong economy
11:48   is a prerequisite, as we learned.
11:52   the financial world and political representatives
11:56   must pull the wagon in the same direction.
12:00   Time proved his point. If we just think about the recent history of
12:04   the Hungarian National Bank,
12:08   we can say when the National Bank was in opposition [Socialist-led], it was not too long ago,
12:12   we can still remember. As a result political forces
12:16   and the financial world did not pull in a single direction.
12:20   Hungary suffered a lot, unnecessarily.
12:24   Since the National Bank is now not in opposition, but
12:28   looking for opportunities for cooperation with the political leadership,
12:32   economic development is visible, or more correctly
12:36   spectacular the economic development, as
12:40   previous speakers have already commented on.
12:44   Respected ladies and gentlemen,
12:48   after this I must talk about,
12:52   the time since 2008, which was what
12:56   our French presenter called a “wakeup call”,
13:00   if I understand it correctly. So since 2008
13:04   since the financial crisis, a paradigm shift occurred in the world economy
13:08   and world politics. And today the measure of success
13:12   for European countries
13:16   is which countries who adopted those changes immediately,
13:20   which ones did it more slowly,
13:24   and which are still in the phase of awakening.
13:28   … This paradigm
13:32   Shift — which is a snobbish
13:36   expression, but still has meaning.
13:40   It want to say something like this to everyone:
13:44   There was an old system in the world,
13:48   where our thoughts were born and kept,
13:52   and we placed them, and it sounded like this:
13:56   after 1990, as elegantly phrased,
14:00   the world has only a single pole.
14:04   There was only one power center of the world,
14:08   we lived in that world for almost 20 years,
14:12   the line of force there were organized around that single center.
14:16   The core of the new paradigm is that there are multiple centers.
14:20   I will not say poles, because in the Hungarian language “multiple poles” means only two,
14:24   The North and the South, but I am not talking about those. What I am talking about
14:28   here will not involve only two poles, but more,
14:32   so more centers… more power centers is the correct phrase,
14:36   or more precise.
14:40   The necessary repercussions of this paradigm change,
14:44   about which there is no wide consensus,
14:48   if it really exists,
14:52   the nature of the crisis in Europe after 2008 was prosperity-related,
14:56   or structural or about competitiveness.
15:00   There is no consensus among the political leaders of Europe. If you were to interview,
15:04   the 27 European prime ministers, you would see,
15:08   there is no agreement among them, which means
15:12   in the paradigm change, now as well as before
15:16   a necessary accompanying element,
15:20   the representatives of the old order, must have a
15:24   debate with the representatives of the new order — we Hungarians could tell tales
15:28   about our new economic policies after 2011.
15:32   Respected ladies and gentlemen, if someone speaks at a conference like this,
15:36   the first question one must ask, honestly and
15:40   openly — and make a decent
15:44   effort to answer it, too — sounds like this:
15:48   How do we interpret the world where this conference takes place?
15:56   Decisive for me — besides the numbers we heard before —
16:00   is the new president of the the largest military power, the United States,
16:04   his inauguration and his suggested
16:08   politics. I have to say
16:12   I listen to the analysts,
16:16   and to the interpreters, or as I would say,
16:20   the devotees of the old paradigm, who always try to make us believe,
16:24   despite the fact we had Brexit, and we had an election of a new president of the European Parliament,
16:28   — with those election results — we had an Italian referendum, but nevertheless
16:32   they try to make us believe, “The porridge isn’t eaten as hot,”
16:36   that it is impossible to generate such changes as targeted by
16:40   the American president, or those we attribute to the American president.
16:44   I would like to bring to your attention: this is foolishness!
16:48   What IS,
16:52   is possible! This is true not only for China,
16:56   but true for the United States too. Naturally it is too early
17:00   to calibrate the place of all the change,
17:04   and its volume, what the character change
17:08   of the Western world will create.
17:12   I will caution myself and suggest that you do, too.
17:16   But I think we received one key sentence in the last week,
17:20   and we must understand that key sentence correctly, and if we do so,
17:24   and we could understand everything that lies ahead.
17:28   This key sentence is not what most often quoted, that
17:32   “America First”, but the next sentence which said:
17:36   “Any nation has the right
17:40   to place its own interests first.”
17:44   This is the big change! This sentence could not previously be heard
17:48   from the mouth of an American president. Now he has said it.
17:52   The age of unilateralism has ended and the era of bilateralism has arrived.
17:56   This is good news for us, because it is an unnatural
18:00   state, where someone, as result of external circumstances,
18:04   is afraid to state that he wants to place his homeland first, when
18:08   governing, or even considering some decision regarding the Central Bank.
18:12   This unnatural state of being is over. We received permission
18:16   — if you like — from the highest worldly office. We can now
18:20   also put ourselves in the first place. This is a great thing,
18:24   a great freedom, and it is a great gift. Respected ladies
18:28   and gentlemen. I am convinced that
18:32   a single pole / multiple poles concept
18:36   necessarily brings it with itself the fact
18:40   that while a single pole has a single model, multiple poles have multiple models.
18:44   In the world economy, this means
18:48   that with multilateral treaty systems,
18:52   it is very difficult to arrange multiple models together,
18:56   so it will open the door for bilateral agreements,
19:00   in military doctrines and economic policies also.
19:04   I am convinced there are no such general
19:08   economic policies that can be used uniformly.
19:12   Nations with different capabilities and in different positions
19:16   can make themselves equally successful. In reality
19:20   the world economy only grows — at least that is what I mean —
19:24   — that conclusion I draw from the presentation of the Chinese delegate —
19:28   today the only thing keeps up the growth of the world economy
19:32   is that multiple models exist.
19:36   There are different economic policies at work, because if the Chinese
19:40   wanted to imitate us [EU], the world economy would not
19:44   be not be at the level where it is today.
19:48   Consequently, we should welcome the rise of
19:52   the new poles or centers, instead of
19:56   looking at them as potential dangers. This is a key question, because
20:00   current Western leaders logically could think of this
20:04   as a loss of position and a source of risk.
20:08   But if we relate like this to the rise of multiple centers,
20:12   I am convinced we will doom ourselves to be unsuccessful.
20:16   The multi-center world brings opportunities.
20:20   Here is China, which we already talked about,
20:24   Which has shown it is not a comet, but a fixed star,
20:28   which will determine for decades,
20:32   the world economy. There is Russia,
20:36   — to bring an easy case forward,
20:40   to chat about an easy and safe topic —
20:44   Let’s talk straight! It survived the sanctions of the Western world,
20:48   isolationists and regime-change attempts.
20:52   The Russians survived low oil prices;
20:56   they survived the sanctions,
21:00   and the “non-governmental” NGO organizations,
21:04   “impartial” and “not externally influenced”
21:08   “demonstrations”. [SARCASM — translator] They survived it. They are still here.
21:12   For that reason it is not expedient, especially not in Europe,
21:16   to ignore the force presented by Russia,
21:20   and at the same time: opportunities.
21:24   Naturally this — if we can do it — means
21:28   we would need more European self-confidence, and
21:32   we should be able to honestly speak the sentence — but we do not say it,
21:36   because it is not true — that we Europeans, we can defend ourselves
21:40   militarily. Without any external help.
21:44   We are afraid to say this sentence, because it is not true!
21:48   I would like to return to this later,
21:52   referring to the speech of one of our lecturers.
21:56   We have good reason to welcome
22:00   the prospective new French President — we hope —
22:04   — sorry for intruding into French internal affairs! —
22:08   but the hopeful French candidate for President, nowadays, today or maybe tomorrow,
22:12   will visit Berlin, and based on the statement, they will discuss
22:16   the question of a common European defensive
22:20   alliance. Which could open the road
22:24   toward self confidence and later to the ability to negotiate
22:28   in every direction, which would include Russia, too.
22:32   We also talked about India, but that is not the reason we are here today.
22:36   India has significant reserves and it produces at the world-class level,
22:40   which areas in the next twenty years will have a strong effect
22:44   on the world economy. Respected ladies and gentlemen,
22:48   So new centers are rising and long forgotten
22:52   trade routes are being revived.
22:56   We must remember with the appropriate respect that in 2013 President Xi Jinping
23:00   started the “One Belt One Road” initiative,
23:04   which was the “first swallow” in that area.
23:08   I believe there will be others in the period ahead of us.
23:12   The second question that one
23:16   must touch in a presentation like this is how the situation in
23:20   Europe looks like from Central Europe.
23:24   The answer could be summed up in a single sentence: We cannot even recognize it!
23:28   … It struggles with four big crises
23:32   at the same time, and in recent times it has not been able to
23:36   reassuringly solve any of them,
23:40   it has a growth, or more precisely, competitiveness crisis,
23:44   a demographic crisis, a safety — public safety — terror crisis,
23:48   and it has a foreign policy
23:52   crisis, which is embodied in the fact that in areas which directly impact our lives,
23:56   we cannot exert any influence about the
24:00   events there. You can think of Syria or
24:04   even Ukraine. This is a foreign policy crisis.
24:08   Europe is drowning in debt. I think it is unnecessary to bring up the numbers;
24:12   you all know this numbers much better than I. every single day,
24:16   it increases by the approximately 1,000 million euro deficit generated by
24:20   the member states of the European Union.
24:24   Economic growth is slow as a snail,
24:28   as we also heard from Mr. Larosière.
24:32   in the last decade it barely exceeded
24:36   1%; the Eurozone has been under the 1% level.
24:40   Since 2008 from the existing employment market
24:44   around six million jobs have gone missing.
24:48   I can mostly hear the voices of resignation from
24:52   the experts, but even now from the decision-makers too,
24:56   that in the upcoming decade the growth will not
25:00   reach or exceed 1%, perhaps 2%.
25:04   Europe is no longer as safe a place as it was before.
25:08   Hundreds of thousands of people are living among us about whom we do not even know what they doing here,
25:12   why they came here and what exactly they want!
25:16   We must face the fact —
25:20   which could be an unfriendly sentence, but still represents the truth
25:24   — we must not imagine things that we would like to see,
25:28   but face reality and what reality sounds like,
25:32   where lot of migrant have settled in Europe,
25:36   in those places the crime rate immediately — not later — immediately increased.
25:40   We must reckon the consequences of that.
25:44   To sum it up: the European continent is getting weaker.
25:48   From a global actor it has become a regional one,
25:52   and even for that status it must fight now.
25:56   Respected ladies and
26:00   gentlemen, we can’t avoid
26:04   in such a presentation — especially
26:08   if we talk about the work of Lámfalussy and open-debate style democracies — asking
26:12   the question: How could this happen? How did we end up here?
26:16   … Many people, as many answers!
26:20   I do not have the need that anyone
26:24   accept my answer as the only correct decipherment,
26:28   I would like to only add to the debate on the topic.
26:32   I am convinced
26:36   Europe set great goals for itself,
26:40   but it could not realize any of them.
26:44   I was also prime minister in 1998, when we were preparing for the negotiations to join,
26:48   so I have that advantage or handicap,
26:52   I still remember to those negotiations with those prime ministers,
26:56   when [Jacques] Chirac and [Helmut] Kohl were sitting at those desks
27:00   together and we composed those big plans,
27:04   to make the euro one of the world’s
27:08   reserve currencies alongside the dollar; we failed in that.
27:12   We said, “We should create our own independent
27:16   European security policies, based on our own strength.”
27:20   We failed at that, too, and we had the goal
27:24   of making a single Eurasian economic zone — from Lisbon
27:28   to Vladivostok — there is no word about that today; we failed at that too!
27:32   This is not a general decline we are talking about here,
27:36   which would bring us into a boundless discussion about civilization.
27:40   But I am talking about concrete goals, which were never fulfilled,
27:44   when looking for reasons. My explanation is that Brussels
27:48   became a prisoner of a utopia. The name of the utopia is
27:52   a Supranational Europe!
27:56   And in the final period, it turned out to be an illusion.
28:00   There is no such thing as a European nation. There are European nations,
28:04   but there is no such thing as a European people.
28:08   And if there is no European people, no one can build on a non-existent
28:12   nation a whole system of institutions.
28:16   Then we must accept the facts: there are nations in Europe,
28:20   and for the politics of nations, their intentions, will and their willingness to cooperate
28:24   one must build on a pan-European system. We made a mistake with this.
28:28   This differentiation got lost in the final period.
28:32   Maybe the more experienced ones can confirm
28:36   my opinion that if we are looking for successful periods
28:40   on the European continent, we could say
28:44   that Europe was never strong, at least not permanently,
28:48   when it was directed from a single power center, but we were strong
28:52   when multiple centers of power existed within the continent, and now Brussels,
28:56   wants to convert these separate power centers into a single center.
29:00   Which provides the answer — I believe — to how
29:04   we got to the point where we are now.
29:08   After this, respected ladies and gentlemen,
29:12   finally, if all this is true, we must ask only one question:
29:16   How we can make Europe competitive again? Mr Larosière,
29:20   has previously given us an attractive… attractive
29:24   and grandiose answer to this question
29:28   Compared to him I try crawling on my belly — at the level of daily politics —
29:32   to give an answer. The first thing, I think,
29:36   to make Europe competitive again, is that
29:40   Europe must let go of the illusion of federalism.
29:44   We walked to the edge of the abyss,
29:48   and ran out of land under our feet. The fifth largest
29:52   economy of the world exited the Union;
29:56   if we continue this way, this process will continue.
30:00   So we must let go of the illusion
30:04   of federalism. From this it follows that Europe,
30:08   we must transform Europe into something having multiple poles.
30:12   If you construe, from this point of view, what the V4 is doing,
30:16   you can see we set this exact goal for ourselves.
30:20   The Visegrad countries as region wish to become one of those poles
30:24   inside the European union.
30:28   Strong, also competing with other regions of the Union,
30:32   and this way, adding in growing proportion
30:36   to the overall performance of Europe. We wish to become a growing region.
30:40   The other milepost on the road to competitiveness
30:44   is for we Europeans to enter into new type of cooperation.
30:48   First we should look for new agreements
30:52   with the USA, replacing the lame-duck
30:56   free trade agreements. Let’s not force the issue, that thing is dead!
31:00   It is no more! Maybe we do not need to throw out all the work of preparation,
31:04   but that treaty will never become reality.
31:08   We need something else instead; we should find that form of contract,
31:12   where Europe and US can make an agreement
31:16   with each other. We shall search and find,
31:20   look for common ground, and make
31:24   the contract with China too,
31:28   Pick up the question of Russia,
31:32   and try to get into the world race, which today is called
31:36   the contracting race, and we Europeans are continually
31:40   left out. …
31:44   I find it important, on the road to competitiveness,
31:48   to think through the financing
31:52   of the individual European national economies. Previously we heard
31:56   an excellent lecture here, which touched on this question.
32:00   I am convinced that if we do not have anything to invest, then
32:04   we can’t rev our economies up any higher.
32:08   Europe is in not too bad a situation from this point of view,
32:12   because there is a bank, a European bank, that understands
32:16   the correct direction. This bank is called EBRD [Bank for Reconstruction and Development].
32:20   It would be in our interests that the bank’s activities
32:24   would increase on the whole continent, but definitely in Central Europe.
32:28   And we are in a good position, because here are our friends the Bank of China,
32:32   who stood beside us and supported us in financing questions.
32:36   And the last discoverable milestone — at least by me —
32:40   on the road to competitiveness
32:44   is innovation. Let’s bring a greater
32:48   focus on innovation in Europe.
32:52   Let me note that, among the Central European countries, the Hungarian
32:56   percentage of GDP invested in innovation
33:00   puts it in an excellent position.
33:04   I think this is a laudable performance,
33:08   but still not enough, and we must increase the proportion of the amount
33:12   from the budget spent on innovation.
33:16   And now two important thoughts from Mr. Larosière,
33:20   I would like to connect
33:24   in my own simple way.
33:28   The first is the question of demography.
33:36   I will give a political answer for this,
33:40   of course, which differs in its characteristics from
33:44   an answer by an economist. My opinion is
33:48   that a nation or community that is not capable
33:52   of reproducing itself, does not deserve to exist.
33:56   and for those the judgement is
34:00   — in the highest place — declared. This is not something that can solved with tricks,
34:04   Nor can it be hidden. With colonization, migrants, guest workers…
34:08   Cunning is not possible, because the problem is deeper, if a community
34:12   is not capable of keeping itself up demographically,
34:16   does not believe in its own future and forfeits its right
34:20   to exist. This is the most serious issue we must face.
34:24   We Hungarians, too: our house is also on fire,
34:28   but the whole Europe as well. I am convinced that if
34:32   a nation is not capable of that, they can’t do it,
34:36   and are looking for help from the outside,
34:40   and solutions, that means that they partially or perhaps fully
34:44   have to give up their own national identity.
34:48   Then it is no longer the same nation as before. This is how it’s written in the Book of Faith.
34:52   at least as a politician, this is what I read in that book,
34:56   and I am convinced that we here in Europe must find a solution!
35:00   Because this is the question of being or not being, and Hungary has taken
35:04   some political steps vis-à-vis the family, which have had some
35:08   results, but still I must repeat: our house is on fire, too!
35:12   Concerning foreign policy… a common foreign policy,
35:16   Sorry… I would like to return for a moment to demography,
35:20   addressing this to Mr. Larosière, why I am so brave to give advice in this topic,
35:24   to organize my thoughts into such a definite sentence structure.
35:28   we are a nation with great deal of experience on the issue,
35:32   deportations, colonization, population exchange,
35:36   and the consequences of all of this, embedded in our
35:40   genetic code. We know exactly when such tools were applied,
35:44   for example, if I look at the Turkish occupation and the times afterward in Hungarian history,
35:48   we know exactly that this will lead the loss of the country and the nation.
35:52   This is why we are so determined to express our opinion in the matter,
35:56   in such a scientifically complex-sounding issue.
36:00   After all politics is a practical and not a theoretical genre.
36:04   Concerning European security policies and foreign policy,
36:08   what Mr President (Larosière) also suggested for us
36:12   a hard question, which we must address with Lámfalussy honesty,
36:16   which sounds like this: without America — or to phrase it more bravely,
36:20   without the Anglo-Saxons — can we save
36:24   the continent? From any, I repeat any,
36:28   external threat?
36:32   This is the big question of the future.
36:36   The key to the solution is a very simple one:
36:40   It’s called German-French security, military cooperation and a treaty,
36:44   A shared army, a shared security system,
36:48   call it what you will. This sounds very simple, but if you think about it, such a thing was never
36:52   attempted before. Which showcases excellently the simplicity and the difficulty of the solution.
36:56   If we are capable of that, or those affected are capable
37:00   of creating of such a defensive alliance,
37:04   the previously quoted negotiations will
37:08   shed some light. Respected ladies and gentlemen,
37:12   Finally, as I stand before you
37:16   as Prime Minister of Hungary, I have to say a couple of words about Hungary, too.
37:20   Primarily for the sake of our Chinese and French guests,
37:24   would like to say a couple of words. To them it might sounds strange,
37:28   for a country that only provides 0.2% of from the world’s population,
37:32   — that would be us — in such a grandiose way
37:36   to proclaim opinions on world political issues, and I understand
37:40   those aversions connected to this, because in politics
37:44   there is also this most important rule: that everyone must know their place.
37:48   Just like in private life. And a country
37:52   must know, based on its military power, its GDP, its population,
37:56   and its size, it must know its place.
38:00   When it knows its place, it knows when it can speak up and when it must shut up,
38:04   So it requires an explanation why, in such issues,
38:08   Hungary brings up its own ideas.
38:12   There is an English proverb which sounds a bit lame translated into Hungarian,
38:20   Nothing succeeds like success!
38:24   That is the explanation why the Hungarians are not afraid to
38:28   voice their opinion. Because of the period between 2010 and 2016
38:32   we can see that Hungary went from black sheep
38:36   to being a success story.
38:40   Of course this is not accepted by some.
38:44   But it is important that truth, that facts and truths,
38:48   must be acknowledged, even when it is favorable for the Hungarians.
38:52   For this… for this
38:56   I must remind everyone — testing your patience for another two minutes —
39:00   Of the fact that in 2010, we had no economic growth, almost nothing;
39:04   government debt was above 85%.
39:08   Inflation would not fall below under 6%.
39:12   The government deficit flew up to 7%, and the unemployment rate
39:16   was in the 11.5%-12% range.
39:20   Of ten million Hungarians less the 3.7 million
39:24   so three million and 700,000 were working,
39:28   and almost exactly half of them, 1 million 800,000, were paying taxes.
39:32   We had no income, but our expenditures were
39:36   predetermined because the government, the enterprises and families were all in debt.
39:40   It was no wonder that before Greece, it was Hungary that needed IMF financial aid first.
39:44   This where we started from.
39:48   Today we can say that debt as a proportion of GDP is decreasing,
39:52   the budget deficit is permanently under 2%,
39:56   around that. The economy is growing at around 3%
40:00   per year. And the unemployment rate is somewhere around 4.5%.
40:04   Close to full employment.
40:08   Our trade balance repeatedly closes with a large
40:12   surplus. This is when the question comes up,
40:16   How could this happen in the country,
40:20   How it was possible to execute a 180-degree turn?
40:24   Without giving unsolicited advice, we would like
40:28   to bring attention to some facts. First, it is political stability.
40:32   If it’s true that the starting point of good economic policies is politics,
40:36   stable politics, then political stability must be created.
40:40   There is no successful economic reform, no economic political change,
40:44   without political force and political stability. Political force
40:48   is not always a sympathetic thing, mostly in intellectual circles,
40:52   especially strongly disliked by the analysts, there are
40:56   politically badly trained financial actors, who think the room for maneuver is limited,
41:00   of the bank sector, but the truth is, whoever
41:04   wants a reliable business, always has a vested interest in a strong and reliable
41:08   politics, not to mention the 98% of the population
41:12   who are voters. The second important thing
41:16   that led to the success is strict fiscal policies,
41:20   which I only want
41:24   to say refers back to the lecture of Mr. Larosière.
41:28   They either accept it or not. The people must admit
41:32   that sometimes strict fiscal policies are necessary.
41:36   I say the people only accept strict fiscal policies,
41:40   when they think they are fair. This is a simple statement,
41:44   but a complex issue. The people accept
41:48   strict fiscal policies if they feel they are is fair to them.
41:52   In every country there is a different recipe for this.
41:56   In Hungary it started with cutting the political elite in half.
42:00   We did not introduce any strict fiscal rules, until we decreased their numbers by 50%,
42:04   halved the members of parliament, halved city councils. To mention just one. There are many others.
42:08   I just want to say, that a recovery based on strict fiscal policies
42:12   is possible, and politically manageable. That is all I want to say.
42:16   That is why I am standing here and that is why we did not lose the election in 2014,
42:20   after we restored the country’s fiscal stability, but won, so it is possible.
42:24   Not a simple thing, and it requires some unorthodox steps.
42:28   So the question of justice cannot be excluded from the question of fiscal responsibility,
42:32   from the circle of political questions. The third thing
42:36   that can explain the success of Hungary is the creation of the work-based society,
42:40   instead of the welfare state. Of course it is not my place to
42:44   bedevil you with it, but I would love to see Western society
42:48   — including France too — when the government announces that
42:52   the unemployment insurance will be limited to three months.
42:56   There is welfare after that, but public works, he who works will get paid;
43:00   whoever does not work will get nothing, good-bye, we wish you lot of success!
43:04   This sounds very brutal, for a Western brain it is almost incomprehensible.
43:08   But it is not far from being fair.
43:12   The Hungarian people thought that otherwise able-bodied people
43:16   should not kept on their, the people’s, tax money. The task of the state is to organize
43:20   that these people get paid for a job and do not live on welfare.
43:24   If the market can’t solve this then the state should temporarily introduce
43:28   some provisional, interim solutions, but the important thing
43:32   that everybody should feel, that their taxes go to the right places.
43:36   Because of that we could lower taxes — I don’t want to mention all here — but corporate taxes
43:40   are 9%, income tax is proportionate, we have
43:44   a single-key tax system, where the key is 15%.
43:48   The road to success, where we still fight a lot of battles,
43:52   is the building of the dual educational system.
43:56   The European school system, which was hijacked from reality, needs to be brought
44:00   back to real needs, so the students find out
44:04   that the knowledge we gave to the kids is beautiful, noble,
44:08   represents high value — in theory it should be this way,
44:12   but in reality it is utterly useless. European
44:16   universities and public schools suffer from this problem.
44:20   But this can only solved if we give up
44:24   the aristocratic intellectual attitude, and bring the material closer to market requirements.
44:28   Bring the whole school system to the oily, worker-smelling reality.
44:32   The success of the Germans, in a great part
44:36   can be explained by this.
44:40   So instead of welfare, we should be able to give the opportunity to work. Finally, part of the recipe,
44:44   part of the Hungarian model, is the question of our opening to the East.
44:48   After 2008 we saw that Europe can’t grow by itself,
44:52   if we only trade with each other and sell to each other, we will go nowhere,
44:56   if we do not open to the East, we will not have economic growth.
45:00   This sounds great, and simple, too, but from here to there is
45:04   something the Europeans must understand. If we want
45:08   to open up commercially to other countries in the East, like China, there is no way
45:12   that every morning we will lecture them about human rights. This will not fly!
45:16   So that kind of alliance — we need your market,
45:20   we want cooperation, we also expect financing from you,
45:24   and we do not give the level of respect which behooves you —
45:28   for every single independent nation in the world is untenable.
45:32   This type of “opening” only works rhetorically,
45:36   but not in reality. The key to open toward the East is respect.
45:40   If someone does not get this, if that respect comes on as ideology,
45:44   they will never be able to open, because they do not understand Easterners. We understand this,
45:48   because we are an Eastern nation that got vaccinated with Christianity.
45:52   Which gave us a specific point of view, and we understand
45:56   what is happening in China, just like we understand also
46:00   — because we talk about a disciplined state here — when they do not give an answer.
46:04   Right now about the critical voices coming from the Western world:
46:08   if instead we would acknowledge what performance by the masses
46:12   raised from despondency and poverty represents.
46:16   Also what China from a moral standpoint finds most valuable,
46:20   and as a primary argument brings to the table. If we can’t accept this, then
46:24   there is no Eastern opening, just a bit of marketeering going on.
46:28   Hungary wants to have a real opening to the East.
46:32   Respected ladies and gentlemen, the Hungarian model has four elements:
46:36   Political stability, strict fiscal policies, a work-based society,
46:40   and an Eastern opening — with needed modesty, but
46:44   with sufficient self-confidence, this is what we can offer to the world for consideration.
46:48   Thank you very much for your attention.

48 thoughts on “Viktor Orbán: “A Nation That is Not Capable of Reproducing Itself Does Not Deserve to Exist”

  1. Of course. So sad it has to be said. Hopefully the tide is turning. Muslims are poison that help nothing and nobody.

  2. In his full speech Viktor Orbán describes the principles which helped turn around Hungary just in a couple of years and despite the size difference between the USA and Hungary, there are some things can used from this:
    (especially Trump is doing the very same thing!)

    – Limit the number of politicians
    they cut half the “swamp” off, term limit in the US could do the same

    – Strict fiscal policies
    3 months unemployment then if one wants to work: public work or nothing! (cleaning roads, parks etc) this targeted mostly the notorious gipsies. (Interesting comparison, the percentage of gypsy population almost identical with the percentage of black population in the USA with similar criminal statistics and limited exceptions).
    – Strong leadership (politics) this is a no brainer under President Trump

    – Open to the East
    I think this one is a bit different for the US. I think President Trump idea is right: let the world compete with each other, peacefully and US will lead by example. The multi=center world is a great idea, not for the NWO of course which built their little empire as a single power center.
    How a NWO olympics would look like? One person slowly walking around the stadium because there are no other “nations” to force him to thrive to be the first one…

    • I had an encounter with a gypsy (Roma, as they are also known?) ten years ago in Eger (I love that town!).
      Walking down the steps of some lovely church, he was walking up and stopped me half way, with his hat out for money. I politely declined, and he snarled at me and spoke some nasty retort — I’ve succeeded in blocking from memory his exact words.
      At any rate, the experience left me somewhat more subdued in my opinion of them as a group.

      • You had a typical encounter, I am afraid. The only spotty side of an otherwise good country… They could not integrate in 600 years and they do not even have a nasty ideology like islam. They are, – just like Arabic and African counterparts just do not like to work – generally. There are exceptions of course but few unfortunately. Now the Orbán government made it conditional, they only receive child social support, if they send their kids to school. They hope in a generation or two they can have more “exceptions”, but I am not too hopeful.

  3. One problem of capitalism (and I’m no commie) is that it needs constant *growth*, not just maintenance. And many of us realise that this is leading to overpopulation.

    There has to be an economically and environmentally stable way to have healthy trade without constant growth.

    • Please explain why capitalism – or what you understand by it – needs constant growth.

      The source of obsessive growth is . . . the demented pursuit of power by the controllers and manipulators of Keynesian states – expansion of influence, empire, welfare dependence and militarism; especially through increased taxation and monetary debauchery.

      • “Please explain why capitalism – or what you understand by it – needs constant growth.”

        Because that is what I have consistently heard from politicians for the last half century.

        CrossWare: that sounds great. Can you give some pertinent points then on classical capitalism?

    • You know I thought about that many times.

      You do not have to be a communist to criticize capitalism. The year-on-year constant growth is not sustainable. Either you improve efficiency with technical solutions (which takes away jobs, but create other types of jobs usually less), but it has a diminishing return after a while, or you increase the consumer base.

      I think one of the reasons for the islamic invasion of Europe, is that the local elite wants to increase that consumer base and while they’re at it, they thought to take down a notch or two the average IQ too.

      Capitalism works nicely in its classical phase, but once you add stock market and international playgrounds with differing conditions, then it becomes a nightmare. Even simple folks who are feeling the loss of jobs and other issues on their skin, relentlessly demand an increasing profit in their investment. The fact that those profits must come out from someone else’s inconvenience or even suffering, nobody seems to care.

      The distance divides us and makes us sociopaths. If this would be a “local town” capitalism, you would not insist on increasing profit from your blacksmith friend who tries to feed his family…

    • Where is “overpopulation” a problem? There has a replacement rate of 2.1 or the population will ultimately disappear. We should be asking why women of the West see no advantage to their personal situation to risk getting pregnant.

      • Germany has its highest population in history, I heard on the news today. Achieved through immigration. And that immigration is coming from countries that do have growing populations that they can’t support.

        Yes, average people (not just women, this should obviously be a couple’s decision) knowing that they would like and can support a couple of children would be ideal. And maintenance of enough trade and production for populations to stay stable, well and happy would be ideal too.

        I do think getting away from a desperate desire for constant ‘growth’, constantly more would help with this, as I think Althea is saying.

    • Guest: I completely agree with your assertion. “Growth” in our anemic, hollowed-out economy means more houses built and multiple appliances bought for the homes bought on credit because the good-paying jobs left long ago. The crash of 2008 was the bubble that popped.

      If we can get a grip we won’t have to think up make-work jobs such as pet waste scoopers, manicurists for each finger nor meditation experts.

      The water wasted to maintain the show lawns,
      and the wetlands paved over make you want to cry, especially since so many of those homes were foreclosed on, even entire neighborhoods.

    • The growth you actually fear, is the growth of the STATIST Ponzi schemes. These schemes depend on growth and gullibility, but they inevitably crash.

      There is nothing wrong with a stable – or even declining – population, provided that it protects its property and freedom.

    • Only in a Corporate Fuedulist Socialist economy s do you need growth any other Capitalism you need to make more than you spend.

    • _+Guest on January 27, 2017 at 8:40 pm said:
      One problem of capitalism (and I’m no commie) is that it needs constant *growth*, not just maintenance. And many of us realise that this is leading to overpopulation.

      There has to be an economically and environmentally stable way to have healthy trade without constant growth. _

      The growth thing is an interesting issue. A couple of years back, I found it stated in a series of 7 CDs in the course “Masters of Enterprise”, by the historian H. W. Brands. Or at least I thought it was stated there. But after listening just now to 2 of the CDs I could not find it, though this kind of highly general statement is the kind of thing that would be in course, and I still think it is there somewhere in that course, because when I heard a couple of years ago Brands say it, it really jumped out at me, and stayed in my mind.
      But. the statement was not made as a precise academic statement about economics. It was made as a statement about great enterprenuers in the US – Astor, McCormick, Jay Gould, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, Henry Ford (yea), Alfred P. Sloan, Walt Disney, Robert Woodruff (Coke), Ray Crock (MacDonald’s), Sam Walton, Mary Kay, Andrew Grove (Intel), Bill Gates – this is stepping through in order from the first to the last CD.

      The growth statement, if I remember correctly, was not an academic principle but a statement about the mental state of these enterpeneurs, they saw the economic world around their product as vastly open and potential. That is as far as I can recall the statement – like I said, I can’t find it on the 2 CD that listened to.

      I know it is definitely true of Ford and Sloan, because I’ve read a couple books on them – they were the beginning of the big time in the automobile industry. They took it as almost an article of faith that there was tremendous ongoing opportunity in the US for the automobile – boundless faith and optimism – not that there weren’t challenges and plenty of death of individual car companies, and in fact, I believe both the Ford motor company and General Motors flirted with death at several points. I’m pretty sure this is in the books on Ford. It is definitely in several paragraphs of Alfred P. Sloan’s monumental book, “My years with General Motors.”

      • I got a little wordy there.

        Anyway, any country today has almost a world-wide market to sell any kind of new software – it doesn’t take the boundless open spaces that whites had available in (what is now the US) 200 years ago.

        Another very relevant factor to the arguments in this thread of comments is this:

        The environment is always changing. What is a breakthrough today in the world of business or in whatever, eventually becomes standard in a new environment. And the new environment requires new breakthroughs of ideas and creations which some groups or individuals will find.

        All this has been going on even before humans were on earth. The environment is always changing and new things are appearing.

        A business book that is popular among avant-garde “business” people is Zero to One: Notes on startups, or how to build the future, by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters. Here is a link to the book’s site (and I am not getting anything for mentioning the book). It is plenty popular on its own, without anything I say, as you can discover just by searching the internet.

        Yah, the book is a bit business-traditional blah blah, and that is a little bit of a downer, but if you can get past that, it still has plenty of good ideas.

        • Being wordy is okay. It’s those 500-word comments that are hard. Especially the ones without paragraphs.

          You’re right about Zero to One being popular. Here’s the book from Amazon, where there are over 1,600 reviews and it is #1 in Economic Policy and Development. Use this link to buy it and we get a small percentage:

          Or use that link to then shuffle over to buy, say, torrone, my favorite Italian candy:

          Some months we make enough to buy the supplements I researched for the Baron’s eye health. So thanks to all of our readers who think to do that.

          [Zero to One’s main author, Thiel, is an iconoclast. He is one of the few – maybe the only? – Silicon Valley guy who publicly endorsed Trump. He could do that without being driven out because he’s too big to be moved by others and they know it.

          Thiel’s outing of himself came some years after David Mamet’s treason when he wrote an essay for The Village Voice, aptly entitled “Why I Am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal”. Go, David! This was followed by an engaging book, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture

          GoV’s link:

          The Amazon editorial blurb says:

          David Mamet has been a controversial, defining force in nearly every creative endeavor-now he turns his attention to politics.

          In recent years, David Mamet realized that the so-called mainstream media outlets he relied on were irredeemably biased, peddling a hypocritical and deeply flawed worldview.

          In 2008 Mamet wrote a hugely controversial op-ed for the Village Voice, “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal'”, in which he methodically attacked liberal beliefs, eviscerating them as efficiently as he did Method acting in his bestselling book, “True and False”.

          Now Mamet employs his trademark intellectual force and vigor to take on all the key political issues of our times, from religion to political correctness to global warming. The legendary playwright, author, director, and filmmaker pulls no punches in his art or in his politics. And as a former liberal who woke up, Mamet will win over an entirely new audience of others who have grown irate over America’s current direction. ]

          Thiel’s book is much like the Israeli website, “No Camels”. Both of them bubble with curiosity and ideas. They are proof against the dead hand of Islam, which invents nothing, creates nothing and proclaims its message of take-over and death.

          When you get tired of bad news, click on “No Camels” to get a quick fill-up of necessary good news, endlessly spun out of a culture which moves forward:

          • Thanks for the valuable advice on breaking long comments into paragraphs. Helpful.

            Looked at the link on Amazon for Mamet. I also was born and grew up in Chicago. Mamet’s statements about corruption in Chicago very interesting.

            I never thought of calling Peter Thiel an iconoclast. My whole focus was on the contents of the book, which I fell in love with. But afterwards, and now too, I am discovering more sites on Thiel, his life, his strange use of money around his being outed as a gay.

            … the dead hand of Islam, which invents nothing, creates nothing and proclaims its message of take-over and death.

            I am not as negative toward Islam. However, I’m not at all one-dimensional. I myself do believe that many regions on earth, if they can do so in their legal and social framework, they should not have any mosques.

            … “No Camels” to get a quick fill-up of necessary good news, endlessly spun out of a culture which moves forward: ….

            The NoCamels group. So far I did just a fast glance at this. Quite interesting indeed and I will look at it in more detail. Very very very interesting. As far as the group itself, I do not have an interest in working with an Israeli organization of the kind that this appears to be.

            As for your comment on supplements. Are you referring to vitamin supplements like I-Caps, PreserVision, OcuVite?

          • … the dead hand of Islam, which invents nothing, creates nothing and proclaims its message of take-over and death.

            Just in case someone in the future reads some of my earlier responses to the italics above, I want to make myself clearer.

            I have not worked out a consistent view of Islam. But there are a number of central points.

            Europe today would not have the trouble it has with Islam if Merkel had not been responsible for millions of Islamic people coming in to Germany, then staying permanently there. And it is big trouble – whole colonies within Germany, with overall effect of being antagonistic to Germany and Europe, culturally and religiously. Big trouble.

            France is similar, though starting decades ago with Morocco.

            Back in Marin Luther’s time, the stopping of the Ottoman Turks at the Gates of Vienna was a great feat – the civilization in the West would have been much different for the worse.

            I have other more particular points. But one more point, one that is general.

            I became “mentally” embedded in the culture of Tunisia after the revolution that became known as the Arab Spring. I read about the self immolation of Mohammed Bouzzizi. and for ?a few years, I read most of the articles on Tunisia Live, a site now defunct, defunct probably partly due to ISIS attacks on tourist trade at a TUnisian beach and a few other places.

          • A slight adjustment: The largest portion of French Muslims came in from Algeria, after the end of the war in 1962.

            There were quite a few of them in France earlier, though, e.g. Zouaves.

    • The experts claim there will be a global and huge demographic implosion circa mid-century. China believes it – it’s done away with the one-child dictum but – given the Law of Unintended Consequences – TPTB cannot figure out a way to *make* women have children. The former one-child law was easy enough to enforce, though very brutal.

      See the book on our sidebar by Gregory Copley, “Uncivilization” for the details.

      Belief in over-population is by now a dead-letter for those doing long-term planning. They’re trying to figure out how to manage a much smaller human footprint. For the first time in human history, without war or famine or pestilence, we will be far fewer.

      Some folks get angry at Copley because he doesn’t offer solutions. *Anything* he writes is worth reading. Here’s the blurb at Amazon:

      When do civilizations begin … and end? And how? Is this what we are witnessing as the 21st Century matures? And as a totally new global architecture presents us with an unrecognizable world? What does it all mean for the stability of nations-states, the prosperity of societies, the way we live and wage wars over the coming decades? This study in Grand Strategy, Uncivilization: Urban Geopolitics in a Time of Chaos, outlines how we are already entering an age in which global population levels will begin to decline substantially, even as urbanization and economically- and security-driven transnational migration gather pace. Population decline and movement patterns are also intersecting with economic, scientific, and power projection patterns, while urban social attitudes – the politics of urban societies – have created a revolutionary new political, social, and strategic reality. And urban man has also become electrical man, totally dependent on modern forms of energy. So the book looks at how energy dependency patterns are changing the opportunities and vulnerabilities of society.

      And the author, with five decades of work in military, intelligence and security studies, looks at how future warfare will be conducted, including cyber warfare and intelligence, and in the area of global logistics. This book shows that changes in the global strategic architecture mean that we really are engaged in an entirely new game. And it’s time to learn the rules.

  4. One thing I could never understand is how the white Europeans could keep importing workers from the 3rd world and expect those workers to keep working forever just to keep paying taxes to provide the retirement benefits of those same white Europeans who didn’t want to have their own children because that would be a burden.

    • I don’t understand either. Why Asian and Middle East countries are over breeding while Western countries are breeding less and being burdened with more nonwhites seeking work, trade, education, funding for their already (bloated)wealthy third world.

  5. Would Hungary continue to trade with Eastern countries such as China if it spreads more (subtle)Islamisation?

    It would be better if Hungary being so close to Western countries look to Western countries for more meaningful trade.

    • I think we could look for western countries if they would make it possible. If you watched the Brexit movie (if not, search for it on YT). They explain it well, that core country companies (French, German etc) instead of competing, they just “bribed” (lobbied) an EU official making a new standard which the competition could not fulfill. Example in Hungary the cucumber farmers were nagged by the curvature of the produce… I kid you not! Of course after that you might want to look for other markets. Also trading with a country it does not mean we are at love with them. This is not a personal relationship, just business. We do not have to accept other cultures (if our own culture strong enough and we have self-confidence) they could offer anything, it does not matter.

  6. I like this man a lot. He doesn’t resort to fancy (or hackneyed) rhetorical tricks, he doesn’t raise his voice or prance around, he just delivers reasonable content. Oh for a few more politicians like that. And, thanks again, CrossWare.

  7. Mammoth effort indeed.

    You said it was coming, and here it is.
    Thank you.
    Will watch and read before lights out tonight.
    Thank you, again, CrossWare.
    And to Baron and Dymphna, thank you for this forum!

    • You are very welcome. I love translating Orbán, he is a straight shooter, not mincing words, a pleasure to translate.

  8. Wants “European defense-alliance that includes Russia” (not quoting exactly, but something like that). Not clear to me how this fits the “multi-polarity” idea; sounds more like replacing American with Russia. “Trump’s allowing us to replace America with Russia!” And from whom is this alliance supposed to defend Europe+Russia? A new Mongol invasion? National police-forces would be sufficient for dealing with the current Goblin-influx.

    • I think (and this is my observation and opinion) he is pretty clear on the nature of Islamic expansion. We all learned all about it in the school in Hungary. He knows that a strong European alliance which could include both Russia and USA (white, Christian societies) will needed against the upcoming showdown. That stuff still coming, 1.8 billion people not changing their minds, just because Trump was elected…

  9. Must be something lost in the translation or the cultural worldview of the speaker. A nation can’t ‘reproduce’ itself. It can sustain and educate and train the future generations within it to adopt and perpetuate its principles and uniqueness. If it can’t do that then it will cease to exist. But it’s only a family of one woman and one man who can ‘reproduce’ genetically, more then once in some cases. This man seems to be incapable of noting the distinction between a ‘nation’ and a genetically similar family lineage-ethnic group. Or maybe that’s just a Hungarian thing. Either that or he is pushing for some type of ethnic cleansing, purging of foreign ‘genetically’ different people who are not deemed to be compatible with the Hungarian genome. You can find this type of worldview in China, Japan, where ‘outsiders’ are kept on the outside of that particular society. Even when ‘outsiders’ marry into that culture and adopt its way of life their children are still seen as ‘outsiders’ for several generations. To such cultures this concept holds resonance. To those living in the U.S. this is an alien and seemingly backward concept to grasp onto. Let’s just put it down to an ancient and formerly well known axiom that Eastern and Western cultures shall never mix. Alexander the Great was stopped from entering into India. And yes Hungary isn’t that far east yet it represents the ‘middle’ eastern Byzantium world directly north of the former city of Constantinople, now Istanbul. Anthropologically speaking this is an interesting subject. Because the more things seem to be changing, the more they stay the same.

    • Hungary has a very colorful genetic background. We have German settlers (some of my ancestors were those). We have Italian and Spanish settler (even some city names remembers that (Olaszliszka = Italianliszka). We had Greeks who settled and essentially we have different people from all surrounding countries. What is the difference you probably not getting? The cultural assimilation! We do not have German no-go zones, or Serbian enclaves! We have people who might go to dance houses to dance and sing their own folk songs but they settled into the life in Hungary. They speak the language, they fit into the culture and most importantly THEY DO NOT WANT TO TAKE OVER THE GOVERNMENT AND INTRODUCE THEIR OWN SET OF LAWS!
      That is what he talks about!
      Do you think Germany would have been altered if they decide to bring in white Christian people from example the Ukraine? They would have some change, like they would start liking pirogi… perhaps, but the newcomers would learn German, settle in and in a generation or two they would have some stories about Grandpa and Grandma from the “old” country.
      They switch over to islamic migration (invasion, following hijra = jihad by migration and overbreeding) to take over a society! BIG DIFFERENCE!

      • I forgot that Hungary has one of the largest Jewish community and a significant sized Chinese community.

      • You’re missing my point CrossWare. Have you been to China, Japan, Finland, or any other country where the majority culture of the country is indigenous to that country. Which is what I mean by “anthropologically speaking” this is unique to countries whose indigenous people are the minority of the population. Also why I thought it peculiar the phrase of a “nation capable of reproducing itself”. It is a worldview peculiar to Hungary, China, Japan, Finland, …etc. I understand what he’s saying. I savvy. I get it.

        • What I meant to write: Have you been to China, Japan, Finland, or any other country where the majority culture of the country is indigenous to that country? Which is what I mean by “anthropologically speaking” this being unique to countries whose indigenous people are the majority of the population. Also why I thought it peculiar the phrase of a “nation capable of reproducing itself”. It is a worldview peculiar to Hungary, China, Japan, Finland, …etc. I understand what he’s saying. I savvy. I get it.

  10. It doesn`t matter, if a nation deserves to exist or not.
    If a society doesn`t reproduce itself on a sufficient level, then it will vanish some day.
    It`s as simple as that.

    That said, there is no rule or law that determines how large a society must be.
    Many depends on the internal and external circumstances.

    I believe it`s more important how coherent a society or population is.
    If there is no enemy within, then you wont have to fear the enemy from the outside.
    Otherwise, even a huge nation or culture may fall.

Comments are closed.