Category: Jobbik

Political EGI VII: Orban’s Speech

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.

Advertisements

Sallis is Right Again: Farstreaming

Orban moving right.

Read this.

Recall this?

Well, my comment that Jobbik is to Orban’s right no longer holds, because Orban has continued farstreaming to his right, while Jobbik has been mainstreaming to the center.  The two ships have passed each other on the sea of political rhetoric.

Outcome:

Orban farstreaming to the right = sailing to political success.

Jobbik mainstreaming to the center = sinking and hemorrhaging supporters.

Mainstreaming may be good in theory but has no empirical support in practice. Mainstreaming fails.  Pushing the radical envelope succeeds.  Sallis is correct…again.

In The News, 2/29/16

Leap Year News.

I agree with Orban here.  Also note how the controlled media constantly use pictures of women and children to depict “migrants” and “refugees” while most of them are invasive angry young men.  In any case, Chicken-wire Vik is correct – it is simply a matter of will.  The influx can be stopped today, immediately, if the desire existed.  Send them all back.  Build real walls (not Vik’s “hey if I erect some chicken wire, maybe folks will vote for us and not Jobbik”), or European police and military forces should just shoot the damn invaders.  Further, can Italy, finally, invade “Vatican City,” seize the land, and put the “Pope” on trial for the advocacy of White genocide? In any case, the situation reminds one of The Camp of the Saints in more ways than one.  In that novel, Europe could have stopped the Brown Desi invasion at any time, and had opportunities to do so.  But they just did not want to do so, and so Europe and the West died.  I also note that in Raspail’s book, a Chinese invasion of Russia was part of the destruction of the West; apart from a false note about Israel, it would seem that Raspail’s understanding of race and culture. including the facts of Russia vs. the Yellow Peril, is superior to that of some in the “movement.”  And, of course, we do not need Chinese girls with guns to “protect the West’s borders” – it is simply a matter of will.  If it is decided that the borders are to be defended, Whites can very well do it themselves, thank you very much.
Sessions finally endorses Trump.  Meanwhile, the media continues to talk about “Rubio’s momentum.”  I don’t know, after being endorsed by Christie and Sessions, and leading in the polls, one would think that the “momentum” is with Der Touchback, but, hey, let’s not be too judgmental of the media narrative now, shall we?  After all, we know that the real job of the news media is to create the news, not report it.  Similarly, opinion polling is designed to create opinions, not measure them.
At first glance, I originally thought that the painting accompanying this article was that of Rosie disciplining the Derb.  My mistake.

Majestic Mainstream Marine Failure

Where’s the “power” that is supposed to be the justification for mainstreaming?
Mainstreaming “crashes and burns” in France, as predicted at this blog.
Marine tries to move towards a political center that is already occupied, and occupied by parties and politicians with previous experience in power (and with System support).  The niche is full; there is no more political carrying capacity in the center-right territory in France.
Let’s compare this outcome with Durocher’s other onan-object: Chicken-Wire Vik Orban. Orban has increased popularity by moving to the right, not to the center. True, the Hungarian Right is already occupied by Jobbik; the difference is that Orban is already in power, and can use the power inherent in his position to push Jobbik out of their niche and occupy it himself. The FN has never been in power, it has no means to push Sarkozy out of the center-right niche; further, the System – which views Mainstream Marine as anathema regardless of her cuckservative prevaricating – would never trust her enough to allow her to become established in that centrist niche.  All that mainstreaming effort for nothing.
The bottom-line: Mainstreamers are the cuckservatives of the “movement.”  Mainstreaming is treason and mainstreamers are traitors.
Once again to stress a point that some do not understand: mainstreaming has nothing to do with rhetoric, it has to do about ideology.  A radical does not have to be a bombastic buffoon like Trump. One can express extreme radical views in measured language, and I encourage those on the far-Right in actual politics (as opposed to metapolitical bloggers) to do just that.  But that’s not what Marine has been doing; under her watch, the FN has moved ideologically to the center, towards civic nationalism. That’s unforgivable, it’s a proven failure, and it’s a mirror image of the American GOP cuckservative phenomenon.

Durocher Doubles Down

But then backs off.

At first, this seemed like just another one of Durocher’s breathless love letters to Orban. But then (perhaps during the orgasmic refractory period), a glimmer of sense appeared:

The conservative populists will not, in themselves, save Europe, even if they successfully impose a solution to the current migrant crisis. Their opposition to non-European immigration is as a rule instinctive and electoral, not ideological and principled. They oppose immigration, to the extent they do, because it pays and will cease to do so when it no longer pays. Indeed, Orbán’s poll numbers have shot up thanks to his successful crisis management and it is hard to say the extent to which his position is really ideologically principled or merely politically opportunistic. The conservative populists’ objective role — visible especially in France, Germany, and Belgium — has often been to steal votes from the nationalist far-right, without actually addressing the underlying problem of immigration.

While it is possible that Orban may personally prefer Hungary to stay Hungarian, I believe he is an opportunist whose current position is solely due to pressure on his political right from Jobbik. His constant waffling in the face of EU pressure is not consistent with a principled position. Then we have his attack on the NPI conference. No one was asking him to endorse the conference, much less promote or even attend it, but just to leave it alone. But, no, with all the fervor of a “point-and-sputter” SJW, he made sure to crush the conference and harass Spencer. Is there still any doubt about his “principles?”
A correct attitude toward Orban would be brief and infrequent mild and skeptical praise when he says or does (preferably, does) something useful, but to always “hold his feet to the fire” and never trust him to do the right thing on his own. The onanistic frenzy of the mainstreamers about Chicken Wire Vik is as unseemly and embarrassing as the traditionalists with their hands in their pants over bare-chested Vlad, or “the Donald’s” army of dreamy-eyed PUA girls lying in the grass wetting themselves over “the Trumpening.”
As to why the mainstreaming excitement over Orban:

Barring a bloody revolution, the only way for us to achieve the policies necessary to halt immigration and save Europe from destruction is by restoring that junction between our ruling elites and the ostracized nationalist dissidence. Thus our peoples’ interests and right to life would again be secured, and our ruling elites might again be legitimate leaders of the people they govern. 

EGI Notes is of course a peace-loving and pacifist blog that preaches a strict doctrine of non-violence. I – no doubt, no doubt! – absolutely abhor any thought of anything other than bookish intellectualism as a solution to our problems. However, I unfortunately realize – with deep regret, shaking my head sadly – that to solve the race problem will very possibly require “bloody revolution” and that “our” ruling elites in such a scenario would be made to learn to “play the piano” real fast.  The mainstreamers, on the other hand, horrified by the thought of soiling their dainty hands with any of that, refuse to consider the possibility. Let’s leave the traitors and opportunists in power; after all, anything else would be “radical” and “bloody.” Thus, the mainstreamers eagerly grasp onto Orban or any other established conservative figure that offers hope that a partial compromise solution can be found that would not require any dreaded bloodshed.

Is Onan a Mainstreamer, a Traditionalist, or a Gamester?

Durocher’s sweaty obsession on display again.

Which can be compared to previous comments at this blog here.
Well, Orban is better than Merkel, no doubt, but the mainstreamers’ obsession with Saint Viktor is, to put it mildly, strange. One can almost imagine Durocher’s heavy breathing as he writes about Chicken Wire Vik, champion of blustering talk and of a flimsy fence that photographers have snapped pictures of, with smiling migrants climbing over and under, and with bored-looking Hungarian police standing by doing nothing.
Of course, those police were a bit more active when it came time to shut down the NPI conference.
Durocher’s excitement over Orban’s obvious attempts to win votes from Jobbik (what would Vik be doing if the Jobbik electoral threat was not there, I wonder?), rivals that of some folks getting all hot and bothered over Putin wrestling tigers bare-chested, or Roissy’s girl-crush on “the Trumpening.”
How about praising politicians and leaders for real pro-White action, rather than for shutting down nationalist conferences in Budapest, building mosques in Moscow, and praising legal “highly skilled” immigration?