Viktor Orbán: “Will There be a Christian Europe?”

Posted on by

Note: This was first posted on September 18, and was a “sticky” feature for several days. Scroll down to see more recent items.

Update: Jackson has kindly created a transcript without the embedded time stamps. The text has been added after the end of Mr. Orbán’s speech.

The video below is an excerpt from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at a conference of the Christian Intellectuals’ Association.

Mr. Orbán is a man of impressive intellect. It took me a while to edit the translated transcript of this speech, and as I did so I absorbed the logic and rhythm of his arguments. Then, after Vlad completed the subtitling, when I was able to watch him speak, I realized that he just glanced at his notes occasionally while he delivered the speech — no teleprompter.

That’s an impressive performance for a 21st-century politician.

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript (no times):

Will there be a Christian Europe?

Remarks of Viktor Orban, Hungarian Prime Minister at a conference of the Christian Intellectuals’ Association. Sept. 2017

Respected ladies and gentlemen,

Will there be a Christian Hungary? Will there be a Christian Europe?

That is the question that concerns all of us. As for Hungary, the task of those looking for the answer is simpler. Because it depends on us, the Hungarians. If the Hungarians want it, then we will have a Christian Hungary.

We feel that our means, our persuasive powers, our influence our opportunities, depend only on our performance, our personal commitment, and our talents. But will we have a Christian Europe? That is a thornier question.

Now I would like to say a couple of sad thoughts about that. … If you glance at Europe’s internal structure, you can see — especially if you think historically — that in the European Union and between the European nations, some tension was always present. The systems of relations always had a specific dynamics, which constantly needed to be dissolved with compromises and agreements, and some historians believe that these colorful differences and dynamics were the engine that led to competition and helped Christian Europe to become the world’s leading continent for centuries. I also share this idea…

So some internal differences have always existed, Countries grouped by North and South, countries grouped by West and East. The rich countries, which were called depositing countries, the poorer countries, which were called the remunerated ones. There is the Eurozone, of which not all 28 countries are members, so there is a group inside the Eurozone, and there are others outside of it. There are numerous other structures that can be discovered.

What I am talking about is that we are living in an era with a brand-new dynamic, never seen before, a different type of internal tension, in which a conflict of a radically different nature emerges, which needs be resolved, because it strains the community of the European people. This new conflict, this internal tension is between the migration-accepting countries, and the ones who are NOT migration-accepting.

To state this today is taboo in European politics. But János Latorczai’s keynote speech about kuruc and slender carriage [historical reference re being rebellious] will empower me so that I will try to weaken it — if I can’t topple it, at least weaken it; perhaps lacking the strength for that, but at least weaken it a little bit.

The situation that is a determinant cause of the tension in Europe, and the connection with whether it will be a Christian Europe or not, Is that there are countries, there is a group of countries, that accept migrants from non-Christian civilizations, and there are countries who have not yet accepted migrants, and do not want to accept migrants and become such places.

The great task — or I should say, historical challenge — that is before European leaders is that these two different groups of countries coexist, to somehow establish and ensure their cooperation. If that does not succeed, then the tension will grow stronger and could lead to a fatal break in the political history of the European continent. So we are interested in resolving this internal tension. While accepting and respecting our differences, we would dissolve it with wise policies… From our point of view — because we are in the group of countries that do not accept migration — from our point of view, countries that support migration are taking an incorrect political course, and they have lost control over their borders.

They put themselves at the mercy of a modern-age migration; they have chosen a brand new direction of development. We did not do that. We follow the ancient law, which in politics goes like this: a country without borders is like an egg without its shell.

What we are seeing today in politics is a strange phenomenon. Let me quote here the thoughts of former Secretary of State Mr. [Henry] Kissinger, who shared with us the following: “Today we can observe an especially rare historical situation, a region that does not defend its external borders, but opens them. We have not seen such things for thousands of years.” End quote.

Respected ladies and gentlemen, it is evident, that in the migrant-accepting countries, the rights connected with accepting and settling migrants enjoy a higher priority vis-à-vis the rights of the individual states to secure their borders.

We do not accept this thesis, and we put the right to defend our borders in first place.

This also means — what we see in the West — that the human rights of the illegal migrants enjoy a priority, as opposed to those of European citizens, who do not want to let them in, as they are illegal.

And that brings up the question of democracy. What we are facing are problems that Western countries have with democracy. They [the leaders] follow principles that clearly run contrary to the principles of their respective peoples, who, if they ever followed them at all, are now giving them up or starting to turn against them.

We do not know this problem with democracy, because we chose for this difficult question: “Should we become a migrant-accepting country?”, with the help of National Consultations, to continuously include in the political decision-making process those citizens who wish to express their opinion about this issue.

This problem, of course, leads to a moral dilemma, which frequently comes up in the arguments about European Christianity: Who is a good person? Because on the side of the migrant-accepting countries, many argue that a good person lets in the ones who are suffering and need help. At this point I do not have to explain that this thought is rooted very deeply in the teachings of our beliefs, of which we are all followers.

But in the case of a Great Migration, which is what we are talking about now, the situation is very different.

I am convinced that in the case of such a Great Migration, we must help the troubled countries or regions in their own location, and not resettle them into our lands, because we will not solve their problems but rather take on their troubles, too. Those are not wise, not clever, not rational policies, hence we represent a morally correct position, represent the good people’s policies, when we say: we must take help THERE and not bring the trouble HERE. But that means the help must go there.

If we look at European politics from this angle, we have no reason to brag. Because if we are honest and put our hands over our hearts, in the last ten years the Europeans did not take help there, but trouble.

After all it was European… with the cooperation of large European states that Libya was bombed, which had blocked the migration waves until then.

Syria was not ruined by the Syrians either, but by the European intervention.

So today the ones who try — from a position of moral superiority — to talk down to us, who do not want to be a migrant-accepting country, are in dire need of a good scrub and self-examination, to see how much they have contributed to the problem, and caused the consequences that they now want to impose on us.

Respected ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to say with this: the policies that do not intend to allow Hungary to become a migrant-accepting country are not only reasonable, but morally grounded and morally acceptable policies as well.

In recent days, I have read a quote… I have read an essay about European politics, an analysis of its political system, and in that study, I found a sentence I wanted to share it with you, because I believe it hit the nail on the head. It goes like this: “Some politicians are like bad horseback riders — they are so busy trying to stay in the saddle, they are unable to pay attention to where they are going.” If we look at Europe today, it looks exactly like that to us. The question is… …

Respected ladies and Gentlemen, The question is: what will come of this? That is the second question that irks us. The truth is that those countries that have already become migrant-accepting countries, based on the laws of mathematics and based on the known history of civilization, will become countries with a mixed population.

I do not see either the strength or the ability and the knowledge that could allow those nations to reverse those changes — which have been going on since they started accepting migrants — and become what they were before. And if they are not capable of doing that, then they will become mixed-population countries, which will have a Christian element and a non-Christian one with strong cultural and religious identity. And if I am reading the laws of biology and mathematics right, then the ratio of these two elements will continue to change at the expense of Christians and to the benefit of the non-Christian communities.

The end of this process is not foreseeable — or more precisely, mathematically foreseeable easily — and that the only answer to our question will be a mathematical one; human history and politics are much more complex than math — that could be our last hope, but mathematically foreseeable. What will be the end of this? In a strange way, I must say, the group of mixed-population countries which created inside the European Union, even though, it enhances its own moral superiority by looking down on us — in reality these countries pose the greatest threat to European values.

Because in these mixed-population countries the values that form the foundations of European Christian life are questioned and endangered every day.

Freedom of religion is jeopardized, for example. God’s every creation has the right to find the path that leads to him… There are religions that do not make this possible for those born into their communities. I read in the newspaper as the result of a great reform in Tunisia, for ladies born into the Muslim community it is no longer mandatory to marry a Muslim man. This is only one country in that region, and a huge achievement. It is clear to see that different religious groups see freedom of religion very differently from us Christians.

So we can calmly state that if in the mixed-population countries the Christian element becomes weakened, then freedom of religion will be endangered there.

Similarly, the equality between man and woman, which is in our world a fundamental starting point, also will be in danger in a Europe that is increasingly dominated by people who do not accept equality between man and woman.

Not to mention the fight against anti-Semitism, which will be weakened — whatever we think about the ones flooding in there. One thing we can say about them: they are not looking to the people of the Old Testament as allies. So I have to say of freedom of religion, the fight against anti-Semitism and equality between man and woman in the migrant-accepting countries: those values are in danger.

Respected ladies and gentlemen, as for us, we choose a different path. We do not forget that when we built the fence, the Germans, the Austrians, the Western media, with insolent arrogance and with moral imperialism, judged us. We can remember that with falsified photos and invented stories, with horror-stories, they began a worldwide offensive of slander against us.

Everybody who had a little wit about himself could see and could understand, that this was centrally ordered, centrally directed and centrally tuned campaign against Hungary as revenge, because we closed down the Balkan route used by the migrants.

Respected ladies and gentlemen: Now, as I evoke all this, this is important, but not because we are offended. To remember all this is important, but not because we can sit back and pat ourselves on the back, saying: “We told you so!” The reason why it is important to remember all this is because it shows that the migrant-accepting countries have not found — in my hopes, they have not found it YET — the way to live together in political communities with countries that accept no migrants. Because if we want to live together — they as migrant accepting and we, as non-accepting countries — we can’t talk like this and can’t treat each other like this. This way, there will be no peace inside a single community, and it will not have a peaceful, friendly and balanced life.

Respected ladies and gentlemen, the situation is as follows: The Westerners have only one thought, and that is with some legal, political or economical weapon, to force us — here we are not only talking about Hungary, but all countries of the Central European region — to force us to become like them, so that we and the nations of Central Europe, our countries, will also become migrant-accepting countries. We do not want this, so everybody must acknowledge in Brussels, too, that we will NOT become a migrant-accepting country, and the future of Europe will depend how we can handle this conflict and difference of views.

If you would allow me, there is one comment I would like to make in a intellectual or ideological dimension. The ideology of migrant-accepting countries is very clearly identifiable. I believe that it caused their change into migrant-accepting countries. That is the ideology of liberalism. In the case of countries that accept NO migrants, our guiding idea is not liberalism, but sovereignty and Christian social teachings. …

The adoption of today’s Western liberalism — for the Central European countries — would mean intellectual suicide. That’s the situation: for Central European countries this would become the ideology of suicide. That would mean, that in the end, we would also become a migrant-accepting country, we would also suffer from terrorism, public safety would also vanish, we would also be unable to defend our borders, we would also not believe that by supporting families we could stop the otherwise dismal demographic decline, and turn it around, but just like them, we would try to bring from outside an imported population to compensate for the negative demographic progress.

Respected ladies and gentlemen, that would mean for Central Europe, — if we were to adopt their guiding ideology — that we would also become a mixed-culture country in the foreseeable future, in our lifetime. It would permanently and irreparably shake our national and Christian identities. It would mean that we would lose everything that we have worked for here in the Carpathian valley, as our Cardinal quoted: “Since the beginning, for over a thousand years and across 36 generations”. We worked, and in the Carpathian valley so many Hungarian people have given their lives… The situation is that we must turn against such plans.

Today the plan for conversion into a migrant-accepting country, in the common language, is called the “Soros Plan”.

This action plan describes precisely how to handle countries that attempt to resist, and how to convert them from non-migrant-accepting countries into those that accept them. Of course we know what needs to be done. Unity: we must have a unified voice and we must not open a chink in the shield. To quote a little mischievous wisdom in an expression from the era of Soviet occupation: “Do not grin here Ivan; nothing last forever.

In 150 years, we did not turn into Turks, either.” This is what we have to say to ourselves… that will help… … Now it is the situation, … Now it is the situation, respected audience, here at the Christian Intellectuals Conference, that it is not for150 years, but until the next election, we must continue to invoke [Géza] Gárdonyi [renowned historical novelist]: the Hegedüs types [traitor in the ‘Stars of Eger’ historical drama], the ones who want to tear down the fence, must be kept out of the government, and we must give a stronger than ever authority to those who are ready to defend the future of a Christian Hungary.

Respected Christian intellectuals, the government is ready for this role.

Thank you very much for your honorable attention.

Video transcript (with times):

13:38   Respected ladies and gentlemen,
13:42   Will there be a Christian Hungary?
13:46   Will there be a Christian Europe? That is the question
13:50   that concerns all of us. As for Hungary,
13:54   the task of those looking for the answer is simpler.
13:58   Because it depends on us, the Hungarians. If the Hungarians want it,
14:02   then we will have a Christian Hungary. We feel that our means,
14:06   our persuasive powers, our influence
14:10   our opportunities, depend only on our performance, our personal commitment,
14:14   and our talents. But will we have a Christian Europe?
14:18   That is a thornier question.
14:22   Now I would like to say a couple of sad thoughts about that.
14:26   … If you glance at Europe’s internal structure,
14:30   you can see — especially if you think historically —
14:34   that in the European Union and
14:38   between the European nations, some tension was always present.
14:42   The systems of relations always had a specific dynamics,
14:46   which constantly needed to be dissolved
14:50   with compromises and agreements, and some historians believe
14:54   that these colorful differences and dynamics were the engine
14:58   that led to competition and helped Christian Europe to
15:02   become the world’s leading continent for centuries.
15:06   I also share this idea…
15:10   So some internal differences have always existed,
15:14   Countries grouped by North and South, countries grouped by West and East.
15:18   The rich countries, which were called depositing countries,
15:22   the poorer countries, which were called the remunerated ones.
15:26   There is the Eurozone, of which not all 28 countries are members,
15:30   so there is a group inside the Eurozone, and there are others outside of it.
15:34   There are numerous other structures that can be discovered.
15:38   What I am talking about is that we
15:42   are living in an era with a brand-new dynamic,
15:46   never seen before, a different type of
15:50   internal tension, in which a conflict of a
15:54   radically different nature emerges, which needs be resolved,
15:58   because it strains the community of the European people.
16:02   This new conflict, this internal tension is
16:06   between the migration-accepting countries,
16:10   and the ones who are NOT migration-accepting.
16:14   To state this today is taboo in European politics.
16:18   But János Latorczai’s keynote speech about
16:22   kuruc and slender carriage [historical reference re being rebellious] will empower me so that
16:26   I will try to weaken it — if I can’t topple it, at least weaken it;
16:30   perhaps lacking the strength for that, but at least weaken it a little bit.
16:34   The situation that is a determinant cause of the tension in Europe,
16:38   and the connection with whether it will be a Christian Europe or not,
16:42   Is that there are countries, there is a group
16:46   of countries, that accept migrants from
16:50   non-Christian civilizations, and there are countries who have not yet accepted migrants,
16:54   and do not want to accept migrants and become such places.
16:58   The great task — or I should say, historical challenge —
17:02   that is before European leaders is
17:06   that these two different groups of countries coexist,
17:10   to somehow establish and ensure their cooperation.
17:14   If that does not succeed, then the tension will grow
17:18   stronger and could lead to a fatal break
17:22   in the political history of the European continent.
17:26   So we are interested in resolving this internal tension.
17:30   While accepting and respecting our differences, we would dissolve it
17:34   with wise policies… From our point of view
17:38   — because we are in the group of countries that do not accept migration —
17:42   from our point of view, countries that support migration are taking an incorrect political course,
17:46   and they have lost control over their borders.
17:50   They put themselves at the mercy of a modern-age migration;
17:54   they have chosen a brand new direction of development.
17:58   We did not do that. We follow the ancient law,
18:02   which in politics goes like this: a country without borders
18:06   is like an egg without its shell.
18:10   What we are seeing today in politics is a strange phenomenon. Let me quote here
18:14   the thoughts of former Secretary of State Mr. [Henry] Kissinger,
18:18   who shared with us the following: “Today we can observe
18:22   an especially rare historical situation,
18:26   a region that does not defend its external borders, but opens them.
18:30   We have not seen such things for thousands of years.”
18:34   End quote. Respected ladies
18:38   and gentlemen, it is evident, that in the migrant-accepting countries,
18:42   the rights connected with accepting and settling migrants
18:46   enjoy a higher priority vis-à-vis the rights
18:50   of the individual states to secure their borders.
18:54   We do not accept this thesis, and we put the right to defend our borders
18:58   in first place. This also means
19:02   — what we see in the West — that the human rights of the illegal migrants
19:06   enjoy a priority, as opposed to those of European citizens, who do not
19:10   want to let them in, as they are illegal.
19:14   And that brings up the question of democracy.
19:18   What we are facing are problems that Western countries have with democracy.
19:22   They [the leaders] follow principles that clearly
19:26   run contrary to the principles of their respective peoples, who, if they ever followed them at all,
19:30   are now giving them up or starting to turn against them.
19:34   We do not know this problem with democracy,
19:38   because we chose for this difficult question:
19:42   “Should we become a migrant-accepting country?”,
19:46   with the help of National Consultations, to continuously include
19:50   in the political decision-making process those citizens who wish to express
19:54   their opinion about this issue. This problem, of course,
19:58   leads to a moral dilemma, which frequently comes up
20:02   in the arguments about European Christianity:
20:06   Who is a good person? Because on the side
20:10   of the migrant-accepting countries, many argue that a good person lets in the
20:14   ones who are suffering and need help. At this point I do not have to explain
20:18   that this thought is rooted very deeply in the teachings of our beliefs,
20:22   of which we are all followers. But in the case of a Great Migration,
20:26   which is what we are talking about now, the situation is very different.
20:30   I am convinced that in the case of such a Great Migration, we
20:34   must help the troubled countries or regions
20:38   in their own location, and not
20:42   resettle them into our lands, because we will not solve their problems
20:46   but rather take on their troubles, too. Those are not wise, not clever,
20:50   not rational policies, hence we represent a morally correct position,
20:54   represent the good people’s policies, when we say:
20:58   we must take help THERE and not bring the trouble HERE.
21:02   But that means the help must go there. If we look
21:06   at European politics from this angle, we have no reason to brag.
21:10   Because if we are honest and put our hands over our hearts,
21:14   in the last ten years the Europeans did not take help there,
21:18   but trouble. After all it was European…
21:22   with the cooperation of large European states that Libya was bombed,
21:26   which had blocked the migration waves until then.
21:30   Syria was not ruined by the Syrians either, but by the European intervention.
21:34   So today the ones who try — from a position
21:38   of moral superiority — to talk down to us, who do not want to be a migrant-accepting country,
21:42   are in dire need of a good scrub and
21:46   self-examination, to see how much they have contributed to
21:50   the problem, and caused the consequences that they now want
21:54   to impose on us. Respected ladies and gentlemen,
21:58   I just wanted to say with this: the policies that do not intend to allow
22:02   Hungary to become a migrant-accepting country are not only reasonable,
22:06   but morally grounded and morally acceptable policies as well.
22:10   In recent days, I have read a quote…
22:14   I have read an essay about European politics,
22:18   an analysis of its political system,
22:22   and in that study, I found a sentence
22:26   I wanted to share it with you, because I believe it hit the
22:30   nail on the head. It goes like this:
22:34   “Some politicians are like bad horseback riders —
22:38   they are so busy trying to stay in the saddle,
22:42   they are unable to pay attention to where they are going.”
22:46   If we look at Europe today, it looks exactly like that to us.
22:50   The question is…
22:54   … Respected ladies and Gentlemen,
22:58   The question is: what will come of this? That is the second question that irks us.
23:02   The truth is that those countries
23:06   that have already become migrant-accepting countries, based on
23:10   the laws of mathematics and based on the
23:14   known history of civilization, will become countries
23:18   with a mixed population. I do not see either the strength or the ability
23:22   and the knowledge that could allow those
23:26   nations to reverse those changes — which have been going on since they started accepting migrants —
23:30   and become what they were before. And if they are not capable of doing that,
23:34   then they will become mixed-population countries,
23:38   which will have a Christian element and a non-Christian one
23:42   with strong cultural and religious identity.
23:46   And if I am reading the laws of biology and mathematics right,
23:50   then the ratio of these two elements will continue to change
23:54   at the expense of Christians and to the benefit of
23:58   the non-Christian communities. The end of this process is
24:02   not foreseeable — or more precisely, mathematically foreseeable easily —
24:06   and that the only answer to our question
24:10   will be a mathematical one; human history and politics are much more complex than math —
24:14   that could be our last hope, but mathematically foreseeable.
24:18   What will be the end of this?
24:22   In a strange way, I must say,
24:26   the group of mixed-population countries
24:30   which created inside the European Union,
24:34   even though, it enhances its own moral superiority by looking down on us —
24:38   in reality these countries pose the greatest threat to European values.
24:42   Because in these mixed-population countries
24:46   the values that form the foundations of European Christian life
24:50   are questioned and endangered every day.
24:54   Freedom of religion is jeopardized, for example.
24:58   God’s every creation has the right to find the path
25:02   that leads to him… There are religions that
25:06   do not make this possible for those born into their communities.
25:10   I read in the newspaper as the result of a great reform
25:14   in Tunisia, for ladies born into the Muslim community
25:18   it is no longer mandatory to marry a Muslim man.
25:22   This is only one country in that region, and
25:26   a huge achievement. It is clear to see that different religious groups
25:30   see freedom of religion very differently from us Christians.
25:34   So we can calmly state that if in the mixed-population countries the Christian element
25:38   becomes weakened, then freedom of religion will be endangered there.
25:42   Similarly, the equality between man and woman,
25:46   which is in our world a fundamental starting point,
25:50   also will be in danger in a Europe that
25:54   is increasingly dominated by people who do not accept equality between man and woman.
25:58   Not to mention the fight against anti-Semitism,
26:02   which will be weakened — whatever we think about the ones flooding in there.
26:06   One thing we can say about them: they are not looking to the people
26:10   of the Old Testament as allies.
26:14   So I have to say of freedom of religion, the fight against anti-Semitism and
26:18   equality between man and woman in the migrant-accepting countries:
26:22   those values are in danger.
26:26   Respected ladies and gentlemen, as for us, we choose a different path.
26:30   We do not forget that
26:34   when we built the fence,
26:38   the Germans, the Austrians, the Western media, with insolent arrogance
26:42   and with moral imperialism, judged us.
26:46   We can remember that with falsified photos and invented stories,
26:50   with horror-stories, they began a worldwide offensive of slander
26:54   against us. Everybody who had a little wit about himself
26:58   could see and could understand, that this was centrally ordered,
27:02   centrally directed and centrally tuned
27:06   campaign against Hungary as revenge, because
27:10   we closed down the Balkan route
27:14   used by the migrants. Respected ladies and gentlemen:
27:18   Now, as I evoke all this,
27:22   this is important, but not because we are offended.
27:26   To remember all this is important, but not because we can sit back
27:30   and pat ourselves on the back, saying: “We told you so!”
27:34   The reason why it is important to remember all this
27:38   is because it shows that the migrant-accepting
27:42   countries have not found — in my hopes, they have not found it YET — the way
27:46   to live together in political communities with countries that accept
27:50   no migrants. Because if we want to live together — they as migrant accepting and
27:54   we, as non-accepting countries — we can’t talk like this and can’t treat
27:58   each other like this. This way, there will be no peace inside a single community,
28:02   and it will not have a peaceful, friendly and balanced life.
28:06   Respected ladies and gentlemen, the situation is as follows:
28:10   The Westerners have only one thought,
28:14   and that is with some legal, political or economical weapon, to force us
28:18   — here we are not only talking about Hungary, but all countries of the Central European region —
28:22   to force us to become like them,
28:26   so that we and the nations of Central Europe,
28:30   our countries, will also become migrant-accepting countries.
28:34   We do not want this, so everybody must acknowledge
28:38   in Brussels, too, that we will NOT become a migrant-accepting country,
28:42   and the future of Europe will depend how we can handle
28:46   this conflict and difference of views. If you would allow me,
28:50   there is one comment I would like to make in a intellectual or ideological dimension.
28:54   The ideology of migrant-accepting countries is
28:58   very clearly identifiable. I believe that it caused their
29:02   change into migrant-accepting countries. That is the ideology of
29:06   liberalism. In the case of countries that accept NO migrants,
29:10   our guiding idea is not liberalism, but
29:14   sovereignty and Christian social teachings.
29:18   … The adoption of
29:22   today’s Western liberalism — for the Central European countries —
29:26   would mean intellectual suicide.
29:30   That’s the situation: for Central European countries this would become
29:34   the ideology of suicide. That would mean, that in the end,
29:38   we would also become a migrant-accepting country, we would also
29:42   suffer from terrorism, public safety would also vanish,
29:46   we would also be unable to defend our borders,
29:50   we would also not believe that by supporting families
29:54   we could stop the otherwise dismal demographic decline,
29:58   and turn it around, but just like them, we would try to bring from outside
30:02   an imported population to compensate for the negative
30:06   demographic progress. Respected ladies and gentlemen,
30:10   that would mean for Central Europe,
30:14   — if we were to adopt their guiding ideology — that we would also become
30:18   a mixed-culture country in the foreseeable future, in our lifetime.
30:22   It would permanently and irreparably shake our
30:26   national and Christian identities.
30:30   It would mean that we would lose everything that we have worked for
30:34   here in the Carpathian valley, as our Cardinal quoted:
30:38   “Since the beginning, for over a thousand years and across 36 generations”.
30:42   We worked, and in the Carpathian valley so many Hungarian people
30:46   have given their lives…
30:50   The situation is that we must turn against such plans.
30:54   Today the plan for conversion into a migrant-accepting country,
30:58   in the common language, is called the “Soros Plan”. This action plan
31:02   describes precisely how to handle countries that attempt to resist,
31:06   and how to convert them from non-migrant-accepting countries into those that accept them.
31:10   Of course we know what needs to be done.
31:14   Unity: we must have a unified voice
31:18   and we must not open a chink in the shield.
31:22   To quote a little mischievous wisdom
31:26   in an expression from the era of Soviet occupation:
31:30   “Do not grin here Ivan; nothing last forever. In 150 years, we did not turn into Turks, either.”
31:34   This is what we have to say to ourselves… that will help…
31:38   … Now it is the situation,
31:42   … Now it is the situation, respected audience,
31:46   here at the Christian Intellectuals Conference, that it is not for150 years,
31:50   but until the next election, we must continue to invoke [Géza] Gárdonyi [renowned historical novelist]:
31:54   the Hegedüs types [traitor in the ‘Stars of Eger’ historical drama], the ones who want
31:58   to tear down the fence, must be kept out
32:02   of the government, and we must give a stronger
32:06   than ever authority to those who
32:10   are ready to defend the future of a Christian Hungary.
32:14   Respected Christian intellectuals, the government is ready for this role.
32:18   Thank you very much for your honorable attention.
 

42 thoughts on “Viktor Orbán: “Will There be a Christian Europe?””

  1. This man has his finger firmly on the pulse of human life. He knows how the heart beats, that he is right in what he says and what he does, and I could not agree more with him!

      • I do agree, Jay. If Americans continue to be willfully ignorant of islam, we will wind up like these insane self-destructive European nations. Geert Wilders, the brilliant Dutch politician warned the US is 10 – 15 yrs from winding up like Europe. Every American should read the “Exploratory Memorandum” of Muslim Brotherhood agents in the US.
        (see : “theprojectmuslimbrotherhood.com”)

  4. I think that it would be fair to say that Mr Orban would be quite welcome on GoV, generally :-).

    Eastern Europe: inoculated against brainwashing by… 45 years of communism!
    Who thought that communism had a use?

    • Well, we wanted to join the EU with the normal western Germans and French and British – not with the Somalis, Afghanis, or Pakistanis…

    • Except that it was not and never could be as you claim communism, but a 180 degree revisionism of the communist idea, Stalinism, and this makes all the difference in the world. [ad hominems redacted]. Borders must be defended. Lenin and Trotsky were forced to defend the borders of the newly born Russian workers state as it was invaded by up to 20 Imperialist minded countries in 1918, hardly having had time to draw breath, as they set out on their vast endeavour. Of course they set out to infuse their revolutionary ideas into the world but ideas are ideas right!

      This was also a new culture, a new culture whose time had come even in 1917. The old culture had caused only the killing fields of war. There must be freedom of religion, and freedom also of non religion, there are many who conveniently forget this second thing, and if a person chooses to be an atheist that also is freedom. And we also do need another culture because the past ten years has shown us a Christianity and a Lutherism which has laid down at the feet of the Jihad as it trampled in its beheading way over the heads, many decapitated, of the Christian faithful. Is Christianity then in our era a religion of just self sacrifice? And there is the great, great problem. If Christianity does not organize for the battle for freedom what will?

      What is at stake is a mobilization and also an education. For one thing the real history of Islam has to be explored and taught especially to the school children of the world but that in itself is a question of who leads the state. For another there must be a close contact witht he real history of Communism, the Communist idea, the different personages who represented it down the years, I mean a real history, not the ideological garbage that so often you read even though I agree with much there in the comments of Breitbart of Infowars in that respect anyway. And that is only the start of it. No ideas today can have a free pass and all must be challenged but for that we need a new type of organization,

      • It’s difficult to garner the point of your post,possibly because the post holds two contradictory premises: advocacy of freedom and advocacy of communism. Communism is entirely, totally antithetical to freedom. There are other threats to freedom that may not be friendly to commnism, but that doesn’t change the fact.

        Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky: all were perfectly willing to kill whoever it took and suppress whatever liberties were necessary to advance the revolution and gain power for themselves. Marx personally was quite willing to denounce colleagues to the secret police if it suited him. Lenin allowed Trotsky to lead the Red Army in numerous atrocities during the Russian Civil War.

        Communism did have one benefit in Eastern Europe. Communism was so corrupt and inefficient, it actually created a Darwinian selection process where the weak literally didn’t survive. We see these benefits manifest today in countries like Hungary.

        • Ronald,

          I agree with you on all these points but to foster a better understanding of the communist disease you have to include the neo-marxists and cultural marxists in your list.

          Gramsci is the first to name. He was smart enough to understand that capitalism and the bourgeoisie can only be destroyed by destroying their culture and social norms (family, marriage, etc.). He called on the fellow marxists of his time to abandon what he called “economism” and to start a culture war. The same culture war we see happening in front of our eyes today.

          Picking up on his theories when, in the 60s, the proletariat of the West refused to be “liberated” by the student revolts, you have Marcuse, Mitscherlich, Adorno, etc, who laid the groundwork for the neo-marxism of our days, happening entirely on the level of culture, not economics.

          Last but not least, the French postmodernists, Foucault, Derida, etc., destructive, nihilistic neo-marxists, all of them.

          The wolf is merely wearing sheep’s clothes today but his goal, totalitarianism, has remained the same.

          Culturally we cannot counter one ideology with another.

          The divine individual and its work in the world of literature, art and education is what counts. That is the “speaking softly” part of the struggle. The “big stick” part is an entirely different matter and I’ve written about it in other comments. The one doesn’t exclude the other.

      • I think Christianity can be a rallying force, but only if neoliberals are not the ones interpreting it. “Love your enemy” and “Turn the other cheek” are not the only thing Jesus said, and yes, there does exist a clear line about tolerance in the bible when blood has been shed. The problem is that the same forces that have distorted American thinking are also distorting the church with false weighting on the above verses. Find a church that believes in not interpreting the bible, but is bible centered and you will hear a different message.

        • For example, re what happened to children in Rotherham and other English cities:

          “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

          • bless you Baron and Bless this noble lion Victor Orban the real leader to enlighten Europe that has plunged itself with the dark abyss of islam.

  5. The stupid British Metrosexuals will go into the Twilight holding hands and singing kumbaya and “We stand together”. As Caligua said to his gathered Senate “With one command I could strike off all your heads!”…. Sickening cowardice at least in the cities. The silent majority in the countryside are a very different matter.

    • I’m a Limey, and frankly, yes, the British Meteros also, unequivocally, irritate the Bejesus out of me. However, please consider that there are at least half the male Brit population who are not. Whilst I’m not feeling supercilious towards other nations – because, yes, we have a massive Muslim problem, we did vote Brexit. Saddeningly, the French, Dutch, Austrians all made the fatal error of not voting for MLP, Geert Wilders and Hofer, respectively. As a Limey, I can honestly say so many who voted Brexit did so due to Mutti Merkel and Islam. The media failed to truly discuss this component. What I’m trying to say is ‘yes’ we are in a mess – primarily due to Tony Blair – but France, Germany, Sweden and Belgium are in a bigger mess. Even more worryingly for those countries, there is no fight back at the Polls.

      • Save Europe. At some point in your thinking you are going to have to come to the realization that it is already too late for the polls to reverse what has now occurred. Which then only leaves those who think like you, one other option.

        Even Farage believes it is now too late for Britain to reverse itself via political means.

  7. Very good speech by Mr. Orban, as usual. I think what sets him apart is that he has common sense and reality, instead of pie-in-the-sky wish-making (aka the leader of Germany, for example).

  8. Wit’h every line of Mr Orban’s speech I found myself saying ‘what an intelligent, forthright man he is, a true leader who has the welfare of his people as his number one priority.
    History will smile on him but judge the insane traitors of the ‘receiving country’s ‘ very harshly

  10. Can democracy survive in a Europe struggling to remain Christian?

    That seems to me to be an obvious question after watching Mr. Orban’s impressive speech.

    (I’d like to hear from someone in Budapest to find out how many people under 40 are occupying the church pews on Sunday morning)

    • As you know this was an excerpt, to keep the size down. In the part, not included mostly he talked about local issues (that’s why I did not include it) and among other things he said: (I am paraphrasing of course). “It is a duty of a Christian Intellectual to open arms towards those, who not share his love towards the Church, but loves his nation, his people, his community and wants to keep it as is now”. Something like that…

  11. Orban is at present the only great leader in the Western world. And there doesn’t seem to be anyone with the potential to challenge him for that title, now or in the future. (With the possible exception of Jacob Rees-Mogg)

      • A [redacted]. What is 18th century about Rees Mogg?

        I too disagree with gay marriage. Am I two hundred years out of date too? In fact, most of the sane world disagrees with gay marriage. Japan disagrees with it. Malaysia disagrees with it. Russia and China disagree with it. Not sure about India’s position but I could hazard a shrewd guess. Are they all two hundred years out of date?

        • I’m guessing it’s the fact he’s utterly immune to modern trends, including cultural marxism and virtue signalling, his Latin is probably even better than his English, and of course that his English may well be even posher than the Queen’s… which is inexcusable, especially on the pages of the Guardian.

        • No, you are not. The homosexual community is not seeking the right to marry, as they had that right all along (just declare yourself married). What they are seeking is forced public acceptance of homosexuality, and an inclusion into a favored minority status position. I see no reason to embrace biological suicide. Do we embrace or celebrate failure?

      • Eighteenth century, if I’m not mistaken, is around the time when the process started, which led Britain to be “Great Britain” …. Granted, back then there was less technology and not much welfare – but in terms of culture, are you saying that it was a worse period to the 2010s?

        • I had particularly in mind, Rees-Mogg’s recently expressed opinion that abortion is always wrong, even in cases of rape.

    • The original word he used was “feloldani” which is in direct translation means “dissolve”. I guess I could have used “resolve” too, but I tried to keep it as close as possible to the original. The people usually wants to hear Mr Orbán’s words and not mine.

  13. I am merely reflecting in a general way. When you mention immigration the listener often falls into locked down position, which often on one side becomes a political correctness syndrome, and on the other even touches on racism.

    But what must be defended now in a very big way is freedom of discussion. No ideas should be ruled out because they are new or different.

    Looking at the overall condition of the modern world, which is not a hunter gatherer society, but a capitalist society we see immediately that it is prone to crises.

    If you raise the issue of global warming, even its possibility, you may be quickly labelled as a snowflake. Instead sober knowledge must be sought for.

    You rarely hear the issue of world “over population” mentioned. Hard and hateful positions are taken up. Yet no less than David Attenborough was very firm in this belief.

    As an example of the problems of fruitful discussion it is possible for President Trump to be right on defence of America and defence of borders, with danger from Islam, and right on many other things, but wrong on some others. That kind of discussion does not happen much.

    I also reject much of the discussion that is taking place whereby social conditions of the working class are excluded from the discussion.

    Ireland is an example. It is a class ridden society. Why is class not included int he discussion.

    I can argue that the Irish capitalist class is very interested in immigration because it fears the native Irish working class, which is the majority in the country.

    As a weak link in the capitalist chain it turned to the cruel EU in order to bolster its power against its own working class people, and the potential of that people organized as a class, the working class, very dangerous tot he native and weak Irish capitalist class, with which it has had many historical battles down through the years, not least being the “Dublin Lockout” of 1913.

    But a necessary condition for this “condition” of membership is Open Borders and denial of a real nation able to defend its borders.

    So it can be argued that this Irish capitalist class, fearful and for good reason based on its history, sold out its nation concept, in favour of Open Borders which is the opposite of nation.

    The question is posed therefore. Who is going to fight for nation against the EU? it will not be the Irish capitalists who have sold out because of their fear of total ruin at the hands of the working class, but the working class itself. But the working class must take up this fight for nation also.

    • Funny …

      “… the working class must take up this fight for nation also.”

      sounds like the definition of national socialism (lower case) to me.

      • Is it wrong in some way for the working class movement to take up a struggle to defend nation? Can you explain what you mean when you infer that it is fascist to do so. That is an amazing thing to say but perhaps there is some hidden meaning in what you say that is escaping me.

        • Another reader has perceptively pointed out that Mr Orbann cannot win this struggle inside the confines of one country and that surrounded his country will be attacked in every possible way by globalists, who are essentially capitalist fascists. But that does not mean that Mr Orban is wrong in defending his nation state today and in the future. It simply means that more countries must do so. But this fight is not an abstraction. It has to be fought through the existing nation state. So your taunt of “national socialism” is frivolous.

          • Just to continue on your theme introduced by you of “national socialism”. So a working class say Marxist party in Hungary…on many issues separated and opposed to Mr Orban, that is the truth, but has to decide will it back Mr Orban against the Fascist globalists in much of the EU…My answer to that is that of course such a party must defend Mr Orban unconditionally against these Fascists. This must be a very concrete issue facing many socialists in Hungary today. Of course backing Mr Orban does not mean liquidating into the movement or politics of Mr Orban either!

  14. Presently, according to my own research, in Hungary itself, a lot of young Hungarians (18-40) are emigrating to the EU proper to get better paying jobs. Like their counterparts in the “richer” part of Europe, many like nice shiny pimped-up BMWs and Mercedes, and cool jobs, in that order. You will always have these types in any culture. They apparently like or are not aware of the chaos and the mess secularization and “enlightenment” has made of Europe. I think it was inevitable anyway.

    Traveling through certain parts of Hungary feels like I’ve gone back 50 years in time. although the people are friendly and generous, you have to guard against petty thieves but that’s why I have two dogs on a property there. Learning the language is torture. But then it’s a small price to pay for this escape. Chile is fantastic, but of course has its plus and minuses like anywhere else.

    When you buy property in a Hungarian village, or outside of it, you always meet the mayor. You have a few drinks of some clear very powerful liquid with him, your real estate contractor, your English interpreter, etc., to seal the contract, and you always stay in touch. The informal homey touches of life there and the realness has the refreshingly old world feel. I know a dozen people personally who have left or are leaving migrant-accepting countries for Hungary, South America, and elsewhere. Because Europe will never become Christian. It is beyond the point of no return. The world is now under a globalist system. It is a done deal. The only thing to do now is find your places. Yet be prepared for a move. Political climates can suddenly turn on a dime in any country every six years or so.

    • I’ve only visited Chile and Hungary briefly, but I second these recommendations. The people are friendly, the food is excellent, and there are enough English signs and speakers to get around if your language skills are not the best.

  15. Brilliant speech but nonetheless there is a slight flaw in his thesis: eventually, it will not be possible for the countries that have kept the migrants out to live peacefully with those who let them in. The latter will simply not allow it. They will have changed to the extent that they will seek to impose their will on those nation-states whose traditional identities are still intact. They will do it by force of arms if necessary. Hence, long-term, unfortunately we are talking about inter-state warfare returning to the European continent.

  16. It makes sense that the countries that experienced communism are more immune to the current totalitarian Multicultural ethos. But then, what has been happening with east Germany? Are they more resistant to the current regime than west Germany?

  17. A poster on another forum I frequent claiming to be Hungarian said Orban’s government was 1984 with Soros in the role of Goldstein.

    OK.

    Except Soros is very real, and wholly deserving of that role.

Comments are closed.