Viktor Orbán: “The Liberals Are the Enemy of Freedom Today in Europe”

Earlier this week Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán gave a press conference following a meeting with his cabinet. The night before last we posted a subtitled one-minute excerpt from his remarks. The full press conference was more than two hours long.

In an epic effort, CrossWare has translated Mr. Orbán’s opening remarks, plus selected questions — ones that are relevant to a non-Hungarian audience — and the prime minister’s responses.

Long-time readers know that I consider Viktor Orbán to be a titan among European political figures. If he were the leader of, say, Germany or France, he would be able to change the course of history. And he still may be able to do so, even as the prime minister of a country as tiny as Hungary.

In his remarks Mr. Orbán discusses four major topics, all of them related to mass migration:

1.   “Liberal” democracies promote mass migration. They are also in the forefront of those who would suppress any opposition to mass migration, and they attempt to interfere with or subvert other democracies that have decided against it.
2.   Europe is in the process of dividing itself into two civilizations, one consisting of countries that have admitted large numbers of mostly Muslim migrants, the other of countries that have rejected mass immigration. Mr. Orbán refers to the former as a “mixed civilization” consisting of Islamic and (formerly) Christian components. In contrast, the Central European civilization will remain Christian, even while protecting its religious minorities.
3.   For the “mixed” civilization there is no going back. It cannot be unmixed.
4.   The pressure of migration from Africa and Asia is increasing, and will continue for decades. The issue will dominate European politics during that time.
 

Some of the questions and parts of Mr. Orbán’s answers were in English. They are not included in the transcript, but you can hear them in the video. The questions have been translated by CrossWare in a condensed form, so that the original Hungarian is sometimes clearly much longer than the subtitled précis.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and subtitling this video:

Video transcript:

04:56   Finally, what took the
05:00   longest time — in the government meeting, because it was the most important issue
05:04   in its political meaning for sure — was the EU Parliamentary
05:08   elections, which lie ahead of us. The government
05:12   first listened to a technical explanation,
05:16   which concerned the country’s readiness to
05:20   carry out the EU election
05:24   in May. After that we listened
05:28   to the results of a poll from December,
05:32   which was about
05:36   what questions the Hungarian voter
05:40   deems most important in the European election.
05:44   52% in overwhelming majority named
05:48   migration as the deciding issue.
05:52   From this was derived the point of view of the government
05:56   that we face an important and historic election.
06:00   Hungary is so far the ONLY country where the people could express
06:04   their opinions in a referendum, in a consultation and in
06:08   a generic election about migration.
06:12   In the other countries of the EU there was no chance to vote on that.
06:16   That is why the European election is a great opportunity
06:20   for the European people to express their opinions about
06:24   the issue of migration. The Hungarian point of view is well known:
06:28   We, and only we, can decide who we want to live together with.
06:32   We do not support quotas; we do not want a permanent immigration mechanism.
06:36   We do not want a migrant visa, and
06:40   and the money should not spent on migrants, but primarily on our own [EU] citizens.
06:44   Respected ladies and gentlemen, connected with this issue,
06:48   the following was also discussed in the government meeting:
06:52   we must set concrete goals for the
06:56   European elections. We set two goals:
07:00   …Hungary’s goal
07:04   is that all institutions of the European Union…
07:08   more precisely all institutions inside of the EU,
07:12   should have a majority of anti-migration forces after the election.
07:16   As first step, the anti-migration forces should
07:20   gain a majority in the European Parliament, and
07:24   a couple of months later become majority in the European Commission,
07:28   then later as a consequence of national [member state] elections,
07:32   we would like to reach a majority in
07:36   the Council of Europe as well.
07:40   Our second goal is,
07:44   as happened earlier, as a result
07:48   of this election, that we would like to be the most successful party
07:52   in Europe, but within the European People’s Party for sure.
07:56   In 2009 we had 50% support,
08:00   and in 2014 we reached up to 56%.
08:04   We would like to remain Europe’s strongest
08:08   party after the election.
08:12   In this context we listened to Péter Szijjártó [Minister of Foreign Affairs] about
08:16   the UN migration pact. I see as a partial success
08:20   the results of the voting
08:24   process. Because nine EU member states
08:28   did not vote for the UN pact.
08:32   Nine European member states already voted NO,
08:36   and if the balance of power continues to change as it has been,
08:40   this number could increase in the future. And it will increase!
08:44   There is one more interesting thing
08:48   that I would like to bring your attention. Everybody
08:52   speaks in clichés, such as how the European Commission
08:56   struggles with a democracy deficit. This is understandable,
09:00   because the governments in power in the member states
09:04   send their delegates to the Commission. That is why they
09:08   are missing some democratic legitimacy behind them.
09:12   European-level democratic legitimacy. That is why
09:16   the EU invented this “spitzen candidate”, the top candidate position.
09:20   We will now invent the Hungarian version,
09:24   So from our side, in our own list, the candidates
09:28   will be led by the person who
09:32   will be the candidate for that position. Because we would like
09:36   to have the Hungarian people’s official, democratic legitimization behind that person
09:40   who will be representing Hungary on the Commission.
09:44   We are convinced that with this solution,
09:48   we can improve the quality of the democracy on the Commission.
09:52   If you will allow me…
09:56   I would like to express some thoughts on the fact
10:00   — to underline its significance —
10:04   that the clearly visible main topic of the European election
10:08   — and unavoidably — will be migration and immigration.
10:12   We are not really talking about this,
10:16   because in the state of modern media, the power is in
10:20   half-sentence messages [sound bites]. And for longer expositions
10:24   there is no demand, but perhaps now
10:28   I can tell you that
10:32   migration will not only be the main topic of the European election,
10:36   but it is such a topic that it will
10:40   fundamentally change European politics, and in the news
10:44   we can see it, we are living in it, that is the determining political process
10:48   — I think in Europe — listen,
10:52   that the partition of the parties, which traditionally
10:56   was into left and right,
11:00   is now shifting their meaning over to a more important division:
11:04   to migration-supporting and migration-opposing sides.
11:08   Or that earlier how important it was for a
11:12   party to be pro-EU or Euro-skeptic, but now
11:16   all these are dwarfed by the opinion on a pro-
11:20   or anti-migration stance. Or, we should think about
11:24   how this migration debate reinterprets
11:28   our relationship to Christianity,
11:32   clearly strengthens
11:36   our connection to Christian culture;
11:40   it makes the defense of Christian values almost a political obligation
11:44   and defines Christianity as the standard of European living.
11:48   This is a new phenomenon in European politics.
11:52   Equality between men and women, freedom of religion: those are the issues
11:56   that are all related to migration, that become important questions.
12:00   The debate about migrants
12:04   now reinterprets the issue about national sovereignty;
12:08   the sovereignty debate is embodied in who can decide
12:12   whether a community, a member state of the EU, for example,
12:16   wants to live or not live with some other people. Is it possible to force
12:20   on them some foreign group of people, or can only the community make
12:24   such a decision? It is clearly visible that those
12:28   who are pro-migration do not respect the
12:32   decision of those who do not wish to accept migrants,
12:36   even though that is a democratic decision. We respect the
12:40   democratic decision of those who are pro-migration and have decided to accept migrants;
12:44   moreover they think its desirable, but then
12:48   they do not respect our position, do not accept our
12:52   democratic decisions in which we refuse that [accepting migrants].
12:56   I would like to draw attention to the fact that migration is such a powerful issue
13:00   that if we do not pay attention, it could break down the superstructure of the EU,
13:04   because behind the cause of BREXIT we will find the migration debate.
13:08   It is clearly visible that the issue of migration
13:12   is changing the developmental direction of European societies.
13:16   So far we have been dealing with a unified European civilization,
13:20   inside of which we had countries with
13:24   distinguishing national characteristics. This will change now.
13:28   Instead of a unified European civilization, we will have two.
13:32   There will be a mixed civilization with Islam and Christian elements;
13:36   it is building a future for a mixed
13:40   civilization, and we here in Central Europe
13:44   continue to imagine a future as a Christian civilization,
13:48   as we have usually expressed it: “Europe should still belong to the Europeans.”
13:52   And I would also like to bring to your attention — with the debates on liberal-illiberal
13:56   democracy — that all liberal democracies
14:00   are pro-migration as well. Furthermore,
14:04   when I visited Brazil at the beginning of the year, where
14:08   I was able to convey the good wishes of the Hungarian people to the new Brazilian President,
14:12   I could see that the European migration debate
14:16   stretches past the borders of the continent, and
14:20   represents a valid debate for other continents’
14:24   internal politics, too. This is obviously related to
14:28   the fact that the UN handled the question of migration as
14:32   a global issue. But it is visible that this will bring closer
14:36   together the political actors who think similarly, despite the continental distances
14:40   between them. For example, now Christian democracy in Europe,
14:44   its most suitable version… modern Christian democracy’s
14:48   most suitable model can be found in Brazil,
14:52   and not in Europe. The Brazilian President, if I translate
14:56   his cultural election message into Hungarian,
15:00   he said something like this: Brazil — in our case that is Hungary —
15:04   “Hungary first of all and God above us all.”
15:08   It may be clearly seen that in global politics
15:12   there are some new directions,
15:16   and parties that can contribute
15:20   not only to the migration debate, but the ancillary
15:24   European intellectual debates, which have slowly become global, too.
15:28   Well, finally I would like to repeat
15:32   that Hungary is ready
15:36   for the European Parliamentary election. We will be
15:40   able to execute it without any problem. The programs
15:44   both for and against migration are developing well;
15:48   in the phrasing of their issues the sides are moving forward well.
15:52   I would not like to dispute those of our opponents; we are
15:56   also drawing up our own goals, and I would like to repeat those as well:
16:00   The Hungarian government would like to see
16:04   in all the institutions of the European Union that
16:08   anti-migration forces would gain a majority, and that the Fidesz,
16:12   as a member of the EPP [European People’s Party], would be the most
16:16   successful party in the Parliament.
16:20   This is all I can tell you about the government meeting. If you have questions
16:24   either connected to these issues, or in any unrelated matter,
16:28   please ask; I am available…
17:04   First I have to think whether I have to have an opinion about this or not.
17:08   I am not totally sure about that…
17:12   But I think it is better if we do not let such things
17:16   hang in the air… and perhaps
17:20   I would answer you in such a way;
17:24   and I am sorry in advance for
17:28   the raw phrasing of it: liberal
17:32   thinking in Europe ended up being the number one
17:36   enemy of freedom. The liberals are the enemy of freedom
17:40   today in Europe. And your sentence
17:44   is a good example, because the liberals not only want to tell us
17:48   who they are, but also want to tell us who are Christian-Democrats,
17:52   and who are not. That is not a path that we should
17:56   travel any further. We should go further with mutual respect.
33:22   Before I talk about the facts, I would say something about the “tone”.
33:26   About our tone, our own governmental tone,
33:30   If I can phrase it in that way. I am always surprised
33:34   when I read surprised articles about the fact
33:38   that our opposition is international. We already knew that, right?
33:42   And we also want to be international. So let’s not allege
33:46   something against our opposition that we also want to follow.
33:50   We want all anti-migration factions in Europe to join forces,
33:54   combine our strength. I welcome the Italian-Polish cooperation on that matter,
33:58   which happened yesterday. And in joining forces on a European scale
34:02   we shall be stronger together than the pro-migration side.
34:06   We will join forces; of course the opposition will do the same
34:10   and coordinate their protest against us. This is a fact, and we should
34:14   not be surprised that is happening, and we should not object to it.
34:18   George Soros-supported organizations are getting ready for the election.
34:22   They are pro-migration forces; they will protest everywhere: Rome,
34:26   Vienna, Budapest, everywhere. And they will protest against us.
34:30   But this is the nature of this “sport”.
34:34   I am not objecting to it. I just state the fact
34:38   that here and now, concerning the EU election,
34:42   they are comparing the strength of the pro- and anti-migration forces.
34:46   It would be nice if the Fidesz were to become the strongest party
34:50   in percentage in the European Parliament, but it will mean very little
34:54   if the anti-migration forces still remain a minority.
34:58   So we need international, European-level success to win.
39:28   That is why I am here, so nobody can accuse me of such things.
39:32  
39:44   …But still,
39:48   that historical fact, we cannot put it into brackets;
39:53   moreover I feel it’s my personal responsibility to keep it on the surface —
39:56   that the migration will be the greatest fate-deciding issue
40:00   in the next 20 to 25 years on the continent,
40:04   and in it for Hungary. I am convinced,
40:08   as the demographic tendencies will not change, the African
40:12   population will increase. The power to keep its population in Africa
40:16   will not increase as fast as the population. The Asian
40:20   ability to keep its population is not growing as fast as its population.
40:24   That is why we Europeans must settle in
40:28   for the next ten to twenty years; we will have increasing migration pressure.
40:32   We will live out our lives under migration pressure.
40:36   This will not only be permanent, but it
40:40   will be a permanent issue in European politics in the upcoming period.
40:44   That is why I think it is correct that any prevailing Hungarian government does not let
40:48   it fall off the table, continuously reminds itself,
40:52   the parliamentary representatives, and the people, too,
40:56   that this is the historical dimension in which we must work. Everything is good
41:00   that serves to stop the migration, and everything is bad
41:04   which that draws the migration to us.
41:08   That is our point of view. This is not negligence, but the expression of responsibility.
47:04   So Hungary can be proud
47:08   that it was the first country to provide proof
47:12   that the migration can be stopped on dry land.
47:16   And for a long while, none of the countries with maritime borders
47:20   undertook a similar attempt.
47:24   And as Mr. Salvini showed up in politics and become the first
47:28   European politician who said the migration can be stopped by sea, too,
47:32   that is what made him a hero in my eyes. And what he is doing since has made
47:36   even more justifiable the way I phrased my opinion about him at the time.
47:40   So I wish him great success! The Polish,
47:44   Italian or the Rome-Warsaw axis.
47:48   This is one of the greatest developments of all, how the year could begin.
47:52   I have great hopes about this. I think
47:56   this is a positive development.
48:00   For us it only means, I mean we belong to
48:04   the EPP [European People’s Party], now from the right of the EPP
48:08   they will be capable [of governing], and anti-migration forces
48:12   that are looking for the different forms of cooperation. That is good
48:16   news for us [EPP], because, to tell you the truth, I am fed up
48:20   with the EPP looking for alliances;
48:24   then it always looks in a pro-migration direction,
48:28   sometimes to liberals or socialists.
48:32   I wish for Europe that it should have from the right of the EPP
48:36   a Rome-Warsaw axis, or let’s call it a political alliance,
48:40   which can govern, which is responsible and has an anti-migration stance,
48:44   and is willing to cooperate with the anti-migration wing of the EPP.
48:48   That is why I say it is wonderful thing, what happened.
58:22   First I would like to respond to the personal question, and then I would make a general observation
58:26   Such things happen when a man’s friend gets scammed.
58:30   …That is what happened with my friend, too.
58:34   While I was preparing for the meeting with you, I visited —
58:38   perhaps yesterday or before that — the home page for
58:42   Soros’s university [where it said Hungary kicked it out]. Manfred Weber said he voted yes
58:46   because of that issue, so that is why he voted for the Sargentini report.
58:50   And what did I read on the home page? “The Soros university is a Hungarian institution,
58:54   and it has no educational activity in any other country.”
58:58   I have a legal education [lawyer], and we
59:02   used to say: “Confession is the queen of the [legal] process”.
59:06   The law presently says that if someone wants to hand out a foreign diploma in Hungary,
59:10   in that foreign country it must also have educational activities.
59:14   I read the total opposite on the public web site.
59:18   There is only one conclusion that comes out of this. My friend Mr. Weber was scammed.
59:22   So his vote, which he made against Hungary because of the Soros university,
59:26   was without cause. To return to the
59:30   question of immigration. What I was trying to say here,
59:34   at the beginning, causes changes already beyond
59:38   what we spoke about so far. About the future of Europe.
59:42   I am not sure if you are used to… I am sure that you
59:46   maybe do not talk as often to leaders of countries
59:50   where the proportion of migrants
59:54   has reached or is greater than 10%. Because if you have such discussions,
59:58   then you would see that they do not speak about
60:02   whether that migration is needed or not.
60:06   That ship has already sailed. They have different questions.
60:10   Their question is: How to live together? It is already decided: they will have a mixed civilization.
60:14   From large masses of Islam and large masses of Christian civilization,
60:18   they will have a mixed-up new civilization, a new form.
60:22   I would not say for certain that this will be a failure, because I could not be brave enough
60:26   to say such a thing. It could be that they will be right, those who said
60:30   that from this mixing a new, higher quality,
60:34   a higher order of life will emerge, than from traditional Christian communities.
60:38   This argument cannot be decided today, and I am not disputing the right
60:42   of those who think that way. But today they can
60:46   only talk about the question of living together. Because the mixing has already happened there.
60:50   That is why the question of migration and immigration
60:54   in Western countries is about how to live together.
60:58   In Central Europe it is not about that, because we do not want live with them [the migrants],
61:02   we want to live by ourselves. Here the debate about migration
61:06   is how to stop the emergence of the same situation
61:10   that can be seen in Western Europe. How to defend our own culture,
61:14   which is built on the Christian culture. So we are speaking from
61:18   a defensive stance, which will create the sort of issues that would be seen if we were living on
61:22   a different planet. They have completely different questions,
61:26   and we have different issues on our sides. That is why it is logical, and why it can be understood
61:30   that the opposing opinion about migration is so much stronger in Hungary,
61:34   compared to other countries, which already have migrants.
61:38   Because we do not want to set foot on that path.
61:42   We can still defend ourselves, based on a conception we believe in,
61:46   and we have had our democratic decisions. One may debate that, question it,
61:50   they usually do so by adding all kinds of disgusting adjectives,
61:54   against Hungary and us, but despite all that, we have a democratic process
61:58   that we want it to stay this way,
62:02   and that is why the revulsion against migration is so much higher,
62:06   despite the fact, that we do not have everyday experiences with the problems of living together
62:10   compared with the places where this has already happened. I see this phenomenon
62:14   as completely natural. This shows how far the question of migration has separated
62:18   the two parts of Europe. The big question about the Europeans’ future:
62:22   How can we remain united if we choose such a different
62:26   future for ourselves?
63:38   That is an interesting question, what I would like to see, but the real
63:42   question is what the Hungarian people want. And I can see that in the important questions,
63:46   Hungarians have illiberal point of view. In all three most important questions
63:50   they have such a stance. First is migration;
63:54   the liberal democrats are pro-migration.
63:58   We are not. In the question of family, the liberals
64:02   support as equally suitable different
64:06   family units, and believe in a variety of
64:10   coexistence formats. We are illiberals; our Basic Law says that marriage is between
64:14   a man and a woman. And when in our countries
64:18   we talk about different cultures that would coexist as equal
64:22   cultures, that there is a culture that for different reasons
64:26   — it could be anything — is under specific state protection,
64:30   the liberals say that it is not possible,
64:34   but we say, yes it is; we have in our Basic Law that
64:38   the protection of Christian culture is the task of all governmental organizations.
64:42   So on all of the three big questions, in Hungary we have an illiberal majority.
64:46   There is another problem that is connected
64:50   with the use of foreign words. But we can’t help with that, because that is
64:54   a Hungarian phenomenon. As we use our language, the way we think
64:58   will not match with Western Europe, and especially not match with
65:02   the Anglo-Saxon world. They use the word liberal with a completely different meaning
65:06   compared with Europe, and even more different from what we use in Hungary. That is a local specialty.
65:10   But we can’t stay quiet because of that.
68:00   If you will allow me, I will posit that your first question was about the past.
68:04   What happened was that when migration reached an unbearable level,
68:08   according to the Hungarian government’s decision,
68:12   I published a five-point document to explain how the
68:16   migration crisis could be solved. A couple of days later George Soros published,
68:20   specifically marking my five points, a six-point suggestion,
68:24   a “Soros Plan”, which he published in the international media.
68:28   Where he said my five-point suggestion as represented by Hungary
68:32   must be rejected, and instead of that, another solution must be used,
68:36   which he presented. He wrote it down in six points:
68:40   a pro-migration manifesto. From that moment the conflict was continuously
68:44   sharpened, and from an internal issue it became an issue
68:48   of international debate. My only responsibility here
68:52   was that I was not willing to continue the traditional tactic, which
68:56   would have led Hungary to lose the debate, that while we are completely transparent —
69:00   everything would be public about us, how much money we have,
69:04   how we fight, everything — in the meantime our enemy is under water.
69:08   That cannot work that we are above the surface and he is playing water polo:
69:12   smiles above the water, and underwater he kicks and beats us.
69:16   We can only lose such a battle. We had to make that hard decision;
69:20   we knew that we would pay the price. I knew I would personally
69:24   pay a price for this. The [international] opinion about Hungary
69:28   will suffer, too. We knew this would bring us into arguments
69:32   that would be better to avoid. But we could not win
69:36   the debate about migration without that, as we thought at the time, except if we bring
69:40   our opposition up from underwater. That is when we stepped up to have him be transparent, too.
69:44   If we must be transparent, who are against migration, then
69:48   those forces that are pro-migration should become transparent, too.
69:52   There are around sixty organizations in Hungary that are financed by George Soros,
69:56   which are always participating in one way or another in pro-migration activities,
70:00   either generating a pro-migration mood, or influencing the legal process of migration,
70:04   changing the sociology in the topic. If it’s a fight,
70:08   then let it be a fair fight. Then Hungary, and I personally,
70:12   named George Soros as the
70:16   person who aids migration with great financial resources and
70:20   with very strong international connections, influencing and directing personally.
70:24   But he never denied this!
70:28   My opinion is that the accountability being asked of Hungary
70:32   is something that even the affected has not objected to.
70:36   Style can be objected to; I used to object to specific styles;
70:40   we do not always like the way an opponent is treating us. I believe George Soros does not like
70:44   every sentence that we speak. But it is not acceptable
70:48   that one side is transparent, has an open helmet,
70:52   while the other is hiding. That is where the problem of anti-Semitism
70:56   is mixed into the question. I have a very clear point of view on this issue.
71:00   George Soros is our compatriot. He is a Hungarian man.
71:04   Also he is a Hungarian citizen [by birth]. We do not agree
71:08   with each other. There is such a thing. But also:
71:12   those who want to defend George Soros, who
71:16   brought up his ancestry, are hurting Hungarian politics,
71:20   but also hurting George Soros. Because in politics we must argue.
71:24   One must undertake the debate and have an argument.
71:28   And whoever hides behind his ancestry instead of arguing is a coward!
71:32   I think it is noxious, those
71:36   who want to defend him and support him, including the journalists,
71:40   always imply his ancestry. For us this is a totally indifferent matter.
71:44   George Soros is a Hungarian citizen. He is our Hungarian compatriot.
71:48   And we have strong disagreement with him.
72:10   I find it worrisome. Independent of party sympathy, I think its alarming.
72:14   I can see that it is possible to beat up a politician in Germany.
72:18   IN GERMANY! …
72:22   In the homeland of order and lawfulness, such thing can happen.
72:26   These are worrisome phenomena.
72:30   In Hungary, the situation is similar.
72:34   Everybody has the right to protest. Everybody has the right to strike.
72:38   But there are clear laws which describe precisely where the limits are to behavior.
72:42   And to overstep those boundaries are should be not allowed.
72:46   I would like to ask everybody, if they do not agree with the government,
72:50   or have any other problems, please use those forms of lawful expression
72:54   and tools which can be use in a democracy. I only ask
72:58   that they do not choose violence, do not overstep the limits,
73:02   remain peaceful, do not destroy, do not be aggressive, do not apply violence.
73:06   The fact that members of parliament are in the forefront of this is especially concerning!
73:10   That members of parliament are using physical violence!
73:14   Not letting the chairman get to his podium is physical violence.
73:18   That is a very bad example and precedent
73:22   in Europe; we must have
73:26   a clear statement [against it].
87:54   Please open the international media every morning, Ildikó! Then you
87:58   will see… —This is what you thought? —Yes of course. Believe me, it doesn’t feel good if they
88:01   write something bad about me; I only tolerate it. But it does not feel good.
91:50   … Salvini… hmm…
91:54   Let’s go back to the stove, as we say in Hungary.
91:58   The Fidesz
92:02   is a member of the EPP [European People’s Party in the European Parliament]. Loyalty in Hungary
92:06   is a political virtue. And as long as we are there,
92:10   and I hope this will be a long time, we will be loyal to our own
92:14   party family.
92:18   At the same time, the question of migration does not know the limits of party families.
92:22   And because now Italy has the position of Minister of Internal Affairs filled by
92:26   a politician from another party family in the person of Mr. Salvini,
92:30   the meeting occurred between the Italian Minister and the Hungarian Prime Minister,
92:34   because the migration issue demands the cooperation between governments regardless
92:38   of the party colors in which they practice their official position.
92:42   But I organized this meeting by asking permission from Mr. Berlusconi beforehand.
92:46   Because he is the member of our party family, who is now in opposition. This is how hard it is
92:49   to organize something in the European world of parties. If we want to maintain a specific
92:54   behavioral pattern, because we expect that someone else would maintain similar behavior with us,
92:58   that is why I say I will always meet with Mr. Salvini about migration issues,
93:02   would demand it, and I will not allow any party relationship to collide with that.
93:06   as long as the minister responsible for the migration is
93:10   called Mr. Salvini. As I mentioned before, I think he is a very brave man,
93:14   so the meeting with him was not a burden, but an honor.
94:00   If we are talking about a leader of a different country, the first
94:04   expectation is to use a respectful tone.
94:08   I would like to make it clear that in Hungary
94:12   we give the necessary respect to France and its President.
94:16   So I will say nothing about him, which would be disrespectful.
94:20   But we cannot deny that he is
94:24   a significant figure in the pro-migration forces,
94:28   and Emanuel Macron is their leader. This is not personal.
94:32   By the way, personally we have a good relationship, but this is not personal.
94:36   This is about the future of Europe and the future of our homelands; France and Hungary are
94:40   what we are talking about. There is no place here for personal sympathy. I think
94:44   if what he wants about migration becomes reality in Europe,
94:48   it will be bad for Hungary, so I must fight him on that.
99:40   To tell you the truth, I have a hard time following the events; they put us on the agenda
99:43   so many times, sometimes here, sometimes there, nobody could follow that.
99:48   When József Szájer says I have to go to Brussels, I go, otherwise…
99:52   I leave it at that. To decide when and how it is worth going or
99:56   not going is almost impossible to judge from Budapest.
100:00   From this cacophony it is not possible, so I rely on the leader of our
100:04   EU Parliamentary members’ group. This will remain the same in the future, too.
100:08   If the Fidesz members think I have to go, I will go.
 

7 thoughts on “Viktor Orbán: “The Liberals Are the Enemy of Freedom Today in Europe”

  1. Excellent stuff. Thank you so very much. It is very refreshing to hear immigration talked about with honesty. Not a single western European politician will talk about this, that it is a generational phenomenon, and will form the background of all politics from now on and for many decades.

  2. Why is the WSJ mad at Viktor Orban?….or allows editorials critical of him to be published?

    There were a couple of articles about two months ago implying that he was degrading democracy in Hungary.

    I was shocked. He has always been a hero to me.

  3. Thank you.He is right in all what he said.Western Europe will have to fight long and hard and eliminate all Muslims , integrated or not from their countries.
    I believe it will be along war but I believe the harsh European soul that was forged in so many century of wars will come back and kill again.
    I have no doubt about it.

  4. Hungary and its neighbours have history with Islam, which those from further west may not know (or care about?) In the 150 years of Ottoman occupation, Hungary lost two thirds of its population; some killed, many enslaved. But then, the enslavement of white people, south Asians and black Africans by Muslims is little discussed; people are surprised when I point out that the majority of Africans transported to the Americas in European ships were purchased from Muslim slave traders.

    • “Hungary and its neighbours have history with Islam, which those from further west may not know (or care about?) ”

      This aspect of human nature bothers me greatly. If something doesn’t affect someone personally, they often could care less.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.