Analyzing excerpts from an Orban speech.
I’ve been critical of Orban, but with his continued farstreaming and Jobbik’s continued mainstreaming, Orban may now represent the “far right” of Hungarian politics. In addition, while I am dissatisfied with the more “implicit” aspects of Orban’s rhetoric, we must understand the limitations – de jure and de facto – for open, free speech in Europe, and the constraints that an elected political leader in the EU has in speaking the truth. Nevertheless, let us take a critical look at Orban’s public utterances.
There are three areas in which it is not enough to support processes, but in which we need a shift in scale, and the move to a fast track. One area is demography, in which we haven’t even reached a break-even point. It is some improvement that for married couples – or male-female couples in general – the fertility indicator expressing the nation’s demographic situation has risen from 1.2 to 1.44 children per couple, and this is promising, but 1.44 is still very far from 2. In order to feel safe demographically, the average statistical ratio of children to Hungarian couples should be 2.1. In practice this is hard to implement, but this is the average figure we should have. Until we reach that point, Hungarians must be seen as an endangered species demographically; and the people – but the Government above all – should understand the imperative which is implicit in this…
Obviously, any appeal to increasing native birthrates has a fundamental underlying foundation of genetic interests. Using the term “endangered species” to describe any White group borders on ethnic/racial nationalism and is wholly a biological argument. That may be as close as Orban currently believes he can approach the problem from the genetic standpoint.
…If we speak about a strong country, we must also mention public security. Today this means two things in particular: defence of the borders, and the ability to prevent terrorist attacks. There is no strong culture without a cultural identity.
Culture is of course important, but secondary to ultimate, genetic, biological interests. Even better phrased: the biological and the cultural are intertwined and influence each other.
However much of a taboo one is breaking by saying it, there is no cultural identity in a population without a stable ethnic composition. The alteration of a country’s ethnic makeup amounts to an alteration of its cultural identity. A strong country can never afford to do something like that – unless some global catastrophe forces it to do so.
Yes, very good. But – and this is crucial – a change in a country’s ethnic makeup should constitute a problem – indeed, THE problem – itself, and not just because it affects “cultural identity.” Here, Orban places culture as the ultimate interests, and the ethnic makeup as a proximate concern that affects the ultimate one; whereas it should be the other way around. If it was somehow possible to preserve a Hungarian cultural identity even with population replacement – would that be alright to the likes of Orban? The reply would be that such a situation would be impossible, but that’s not the point. It is a thought experiment to explore, identify, and define priorities. Ethnicity or culture?
Note I have no problem in invoking culture to defend ethnic genetic interests, nor do I lack understanding of the complexities that come with European speech laws and various other de jure and de facto restrictions. But with Orban cutting so close to the edge here, one has to note the possibility that he sincerely places culture first, and is not only speaking this way out of necessity (which would obviously be more acceptable).
Over the next few decades the main question in Europe will be this: will Europe remain the continent of the Europeans? Will Hungary remain the country of the Hungarians? Will Germany remain the country of the Germans? Will France remain the country of the French? Or will Italy remain the country of the Italians? Who will live in Europe?
That’s the ultimate existential question. It is good that Orban is mentioning specific ethnic groups as the rightful inhabitants of specific nations – asking WHO will live in Europe. That is an EGI-loaded question.
This is a historical question which we must face up to today. As regards the specific situation – and this is quite telling about the world that we live in today – there’s no concrete, reliable information on the percentages of traditional indigenous Christians and the incoming Muslim communities living in Europe’s individual countries. In practice it is forbidden to gather information like this. And the data which is gathered is not adequate for us to predict what the future holds for us, as migrants, immigrants, are not evenly distributed throughout the different age groups. So the general figures say little about what awaits us. We should focus most on people under the age of 15, and also those between 15 and 45. From those figures we can project, we can calculate, what the situation will be like in each country in, say, 2050.
Looking ahead, unlike most politicians. When you farstream, you are forced in that direction; conversely, when you mainstream, you are forced away from that direction.
Naturally, when considering the whole issue of who will live in Europe, one could argue that this problem will be solved by successful integration.
No, that’s exactly what we should NOT argue. It doesn’t matter if aliens “integrate” – or, better yet, we do not want them and their alien genes to integrate. We do not want them in our nations, carrying their alien genes, unintegrated either. We do not want them at all.
The reality, however, is that we’re not aware of any examples of successful integration. It’s obvious that migration is not the answer to economic problems and labour shortages.
That’s true even if integration were to be successful. “Economic problems and labor shortages” are not an excuse for genocidal race replacement. The natives do not prosper by a “strong economy” when they are replaced by other peoples. The Alt Right has correctly pointed out the Establishment hypocrisy: on the one hand, we must “save the environment” by having less children; on the other hand, we must import immigrants because Europeans don’t have enough children to “support the economy.”
Interestingly, people in Europe are least concerned about migrants taking their jobs. This probably reflects some form of personal experience.
If proximate concerns like that can motivate a defense of ethnic interests, fine, but of course the problem is much deeper than personal experience and personal grievance about job opportunities.
I can believe there are desperate situations, just like a castaway on the ocean finally giving in to the urge to drink seawater: it’s water, but it doesn’t quench one’s thirst, and only adds to the problem. This is more or less the situation in which those who want to cure their economic ills with immigrants will find themselves. In countering arguments for successful integration, we must also point out that if people with diverging goals find themselves in the same system or country, it won’t lead to integration, but to chaos. It’s obvious that the culture of migrants contrasts dramatically with European culture. Opposing ideologies and values cannot be simultaneously upheld, as they are mutually exclusive. To give you the most obvious example, the European people think it desirable for men and women to be equal, while for the Muslim community this idea is unacceptable, as in their culture the relationship between men and women is seen in terms of a hierarchical order. These two concepts cannot be upheld at the same time. It’s only a question of time before one or the other prevails.
Again, if these proximate concerns motivate ethnic defense, fine, but it obscures the question. If these migrants were 100% on board with current liberal European values, if they were seamlessly integrating, would race replacement – genocide – be alright then? We should be thankful they are not integrating well, that the experience for Europeans is painful enough to motivate ethnic defense. As Salter has written, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does. How about talking about European ethnic-racial existence, rather than just culture? I understand the practical implications for speech in Europe, but one could invoke the language of kin and family here.
Of course one could also argue that communities coming to us from different cultures can be re-educated. But we must see – and Bishop Tőkés also spoke about this – that now the Muslim communities coming to Europe see their own culture, their own faith, their own lifestyles and their own principles as stronger and more valuable than ours. So, whether we like it or not, in terms of respect for life, optimism, commitment, the subordination of individual interests and ideals, today Muslim communities are stronger than Christian communities. Why would anyone want to adopt a culture that appears to be weaker than their own strong culture? They won’t, and they never will! Therefore re-education and integration based on re-education cannot succeed.
Again, it is better that it does not succeed. Stop talking only in terms of culture for godssakes. There is room for rhetorical maneuver here, using careful language. Why should Europeans be race replaced, regardless of “culture and integration?”
…there is a Soros plan. It comprises four points. He wrote it down himself, the Soros Empire published it and began recruitment for implementation of the plan. The plan says that every year hundreds of thousands migrants – and, if possible, a million – should be brought into the territory of the European Union from the Muslim world. The second point is that upon arrival every one of them should be given an amount in euros equivalent to four and a half million forints. The author of the plan would gladly finance this – but that is secondary, although it’s something that’s worth pondering. However, it’s not this, it’s not the business profit that’s the essence of the proposal, but the fact that in this way it’s possible to maintain a continuous influx. So those who want at least a million migrants to come in every year must maintain this mechanism – which in European political terminology is called a “pull factor” – so that they continue to come. And if they distribute them and everyone receives a sum – which is, in fact, higher than the Hungarian annual average wage – there won’t be a problem with reduced flow. The third point in the Soros plan is that the migrants arriving on the continent will have to be distributed among the countries of Europe as part of a mandatory and permanent mechanism.
Soros is of course a “HuWhite man of the West,” right?
A shrewd speaker should approach Universalist, faux-rationalist liberal Europeans and make the argument:
1. Universalism means that all peoples should have the same rights and should be cared for the same
2. You Universalists assert that genocide is wrong and you champion indigenous rights
3. Therefore, you must oppose European genocide – even auto-genocide – and champion the rights of indigenous Europeans
Of course, the Left, and much of the lemming-like masses, would reject such an overt argument, but that would force them to admit an irrational, inconsistent, hypocritical, anti-European worldview.