Our translator, Crossware, tipped the B to this video. It’s partially/mostly in English (with Hungarian subtitles). Pay particular attention to the moustachioed gentleman from England [and the two cuties from Denmark are worth your time].
The Swedish fellow looks like he got his tips on ‘dress to impress’ from America. I was going to say “I thought Swedes had more sense” but never mind.
Clean streets, friendly people, a sense of calm and well being; obviously not Western Europe.
Yes, the two cuties from Denmark are worth watching and listening to. However, I wish they had been given more of an opportunity to elaborate on the hidden-away places that they found. I assume some kind of cafe was the subject.
I would have supposed they were Danish had I been there, but to me, they don’t come across as very lively. Perhaps if they had had more time to talk, their motto might turn out to be: Eat dessert first! Then again, maybe not.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all that tourists flock to Hungary. The word is out internationally that Western Europe is not safe anymore for visitors. Young women traveling by themselves would be victim fodder in France and many other countries. There lies the appeal of Eastern Europe; few migrants hanging around street corners.
None of the visitors in the video actually mentioned that, but it probably was a factor.
I had several reactions.
Several of the tourists, if you listen carefully, still advocate taking refugees. They put the conditions on that they must really be refugees and willing to adapt to the country.
This is still a recipe for disaster. They have to realize that countries are not half-empty lifeboats. Refugees, even genuine ones, will have to fend for themselves.
Another reaction is that the presence of tourists is fine, but Hungary has to be very, very careful in its immigration policies. If it allows some of these nice white eloquent tourists to immigrate, they will have increased the proportion of the population that thinks immigration and migrants are fine, as long as there is some vetting. This implies that the political view of a potential refugee, as well as their clean record and ability to work, should at the minimum be considered when deciding to accept an immigrant.
Better yet, the country should accept no migrants at all, but covertly encourage white Europeans who feel dispossessed, to carve out their own spaces in their own countries. A “refugee” who is not willing to consider this does not really wish to change his political beliefs. He simply wishes to move away from the nest he has already fouled, and find a clean one, without having to go to the trouble of seriously examining his own behavior.
I just came from a tour in East Europe. Almost 4 weeks in Prague, Bratislava, Budapest and few cities in Romania. There is a different world. People are extremely active, everything is happening fast. You notice this from first second you start driving there. People does not have the financial possibilities as people in the west….but…it is not so important for them this detail. They are more in to having fun, going out, party, good food, children. They are alive. They try to take advantage of every minute. Every second is important. It is a different world. In that world islam is not welcomed. Not yet. Who knows what will happen in the future, but in the present, the last thing they care is islam. They don’t even understand why the people in the west are so blind. They do understand to be kind, but not stupid. I have a stone on my heart. I miss so much that world.
You bring up a good point. The unit of analysis for classical liberals, establishment conservatives, and mutton-headed libertarians is the cost-per-unit. In other words, what market conditions give the lower price for a bushel of wheat. Naturally, framed in these terms, one advocates open markets and open borders, which do, in fact, deliver (for awhile) the lowest cost-per-item.
But, this sort of analysis ignores the reason for economics in the first place: to enhance the quality of life of the individual, and even to preserve and promote the culture and identity of a country. And we’re ignoring the social costs that are kicked down the road. I notice a lot of Mexican workers (we have them by the boatload here) smoke, and perform heavy manual day labor. They’re not going to have a working life of more than 10 or 15 years, tops, and then they’ll be a drag on the public health care and welfare system: housing support, food support, and expensive medical treatments for cancer and heart and circulation diseases.
But, continuing to track the quality of life, when different peoples come in, it’s not just the increase in crime and the overcrowding of living areas, resulting in the devastation of native flora and fauna and wildlife. It’s the alienation of being surrounded by neighbors who have very little in common with you. So, you save a few hundred bucks on food, household items and the like, or even on a car, and you lose the opportunity to actually live in the company of people who share your background and orientation and who, even if they disagree with you, will understand you immediately.
As a guy told me,
“…all future people coming in here trying to start a new life must know what represent to us Iancu de Hunedoara, Matei Corvin, Vlad Tepes, Stefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul, Constantin Brincoveanu, Stalin, Ceausescu. If they don’t, they are in danger. East Europeans can endure a lot. Romanians are known in history as champions in enduring bad times. So, for a period, the new neighbors can be accepted even if they generate problems. But they should know that Romanians, after a long period of enduring bad times, have the bad habit to socially explode at a nuclear level. So, for migrants’ safety, East Europe is dangerous. Romania is deadly.”
And comparing Mexicans with Muslims is wrong. Mexicans work hard.
During wars with Ottomans, some Muslims were taken prisoner. After a few generations of existence in Romania, for a muslim is OK to have a beer at his Christian friends’ party or to eat pork.