Orbán: Europeans Should Have Babies, Not Immigrants!


You will have to forgive me if I risk turning The Occidental Observer into the Orbán News Network, but really there is too much good old-fashioned common sense coming out of Hungary to be ignored.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s is hammering away, and not only to domestic audiences, on essential issues. A major recent contribution was at the Budapest Demographic Forum, where he spoke on the necessity of increasing European fertility and of the insanity of using Afro-Muslim immigration to tackle the Old Continent’s demographic aging problem. He said: “Europe cannot build its future on immigration, rather than families.”

The speech’s other key themes included the need to turn Hungary into a “family-friendly country,” demographic aging/immigration as a threat to European civilization, the fact that this threat is insufficiently discussed by European elites, the censorship imposed by political correctness and media pressure against those speaking out, and the need to renew not just Hungary but Europe as a whole.

The Budapest event included Hungarian, Italian, Russian, French, Polish, Irish, and Spanish speakers, often from elite institutions (Oxford University, the Sorbonne . . .). Really, if we lived in a healthy culture (or even merely a non-insane one), meetings of this kind with senior politicians, academics, and civil society leaders would be held every day.

Instead, our media and politicians endlessly engage in moralizing prattle about climate change, “equality,” multiculturalism, and how to (allegedly) extract a few more shekels out of the global economy through “free trade.” The result, as Roman Bernard recently pointed out at the Washington conference of the National Policy Institute, is endless failure, because the globalists ignore (or pretend to ignore) demographic and national realities. Instead, there is ever-more inequality and social alienation, and endless economic strife (weak growth, financial crises, government deficits, bloated welfare states, mass unemployment . . .).

And the brainwashed liberal nincompoops cry: “Why, oh why is there so much inequality?” Cue our modern-day Two Minutes of Hate, during which (Jewish-dominated) liberal media (e.g. The Daily Show,[1] Vox, Paul Krugman . . .) explain that of course ethnocentric Whites (“rednecks,” conservatives, Christians, nationalists . . .) and “White privilege” are to blame, and that the (final?) solution is to physically replace them with coloreds.

Personally, I have noticed that liberals are getting more bitter and more intolerant in their search for (White) scapegoats to hate and blame for the oh-so-mysterious persistence and even steady increase in inequality and ethnic strife.[2] That’s a neat dialectic: Exploit frustration at inequality and atomization caused by White decline to agitate for yet more White decline. Yes indeed, the enemies of our people are very clever, far too clever for their own good.

Anyway, the following is Orbán’s speech. You will forgive me if I quote at length with only slight abridging and some bolding, because it really is very clear and incisive:

I would like to clarify why I think it is important that we have succeeded in holding this conference. I feel that we have to seize every opportunity to finally talk about demographics openly, free from political taboos, and, if possible, among the widest possible circles. [. . .]

The situation is that in Europe today it is not PC to talk about demographic issues. I am personally faced almost daily with the fact that there are certain topics which nowadays are not considered suitable subjects for discussion in the European public sphere. There are words which simply cannot be uttered — not for aesthetic reasons, but for political reasons. We have here before us a recent example: the leader of one of Europe’s most successful countries since World War Two, the leader of a democratic country, made a statement to the effect that his country is not building a fence, but a gate with very long fixed side sections. At first sight, this might appear to be some sort of witticism, but I am asking you to see the pathetic side of the situation. What have we come to? The Europe of which we were once proud — because this was the world of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion — is today in such an intellectual state, has manoeuvred itself into such a spiritual state, that certain words, questions and political concepts cannot even be uttered.  [. . .]

The figures show that Europe is ageing. The figures show that Europe’s population will decline. In 2013 the number of deaths exceeded the number of births in one half of the 28 Member States of the European Union, and in some European countries a depressingly high percentage of young people cannot even find jobs. In addition, Europe’s demographic weight in the world will continue to decrease. In 1960 Europe’s population accounted for 13.4 per cent of the world’s population; in 2013 that figure is only 7.1 per cent, if we look at the 28 Member States of the European Union. This means that Europe is the continent and civilisation which is struggling with the gravest demographic problem and is the most rapidly ageing continent. But if the situation is this serious, why is this topic so under-represented in politics and in European discourse in general? Who will live here in Europe? This is the key question here. We should talk about this seriously, and yet much more time, attention, energy and money are being devoted to other things and to debates which have much less to do with reality: gender debates, same-sex marriage, and we could certainly mention quite a few others. These are all important things which may be dear to our hearts, but they are nonetheless only secondary. They will not shift Europe out of the economic and social quagmire which it is stuck in. It seems that today there is antipathy towards those who are willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes, those who warn, based on factual evidence, that there will be big problems if politics abandons the basic unit of European culture: the family. [. . .]

[T]here is a political accusation being levelled ever more frequently in Europe. Effectively this accusation is that if a government supports families, it sends the message that it sees other ways of life as inferior, and it is thus not inclusive. This is obviously silly, but even so it is difficult to defend ourselves against accusations of this type. Therefore, the current Hungarian government — as you may have seen — is directing a great deal of energy towards making it clear that supporting families and recognising freedom are not mutually exclusive. Setting one against the other is just a devious trick, which must be exposed so that we can stand up for the family and for our own values sincerely and with a clear conscience. [. . .]

Luckily, in this respect Hungary is not in a poor state, and never has been. In Hungary the majority believe that in the modern age a child is both a blessing and a reward in the life of a family and in the life of society alike. Everyone in Hungary — all right, maybe not everyone, but most people — are capable of doing more for their children than for themselves. We Hungarians believe that children magnify the strength of their parents, they magnify the strength of the family, and a generation of children magnify the strength of a nation, of a whole country, and finally our entire civilisation. Children magnify our capacity, and enable us to achieve more; this is the view we take. So children are a motivating force: a positive motivating force in the life of society, like no other we know of. After all, when we are old, they will look after us, they will attend to our needs, they will be the guarantee for renewal of our communities, and they will take forward the heritage which is everything which has made our lives meaningful. Without children, there is no continuation, and there is no security for the elderly. [. . .]

It is not the topic of this meeting in the strictest sense, but we all know that if there are insufficient numbers of children, the issue of immigration will emerge — at least until mass cloning becomes widespread in European civilisation, which is something that we hope the Almighty will spare us from. In terms of the peaceful functioning of societies, it is important that our communities should be capable of regeneration. It is important that communities should remain viable, and should be able to sustain themselves without resorting to external resources. I am convinced that Europe cannot build its future on immigration, rather than families. I would like to warn you, however, that there are already European documents in existence which seek the solution in that area. [. . .]

Those who expect help from elsewhere will sooner or later have to pay the price for it. This is an iron law, there is no alternative to it — even though there are some in Brussels who think that the immigrants flooding into Europe should be seen as a blessing, because with them we shall be able to resolve our economic and demographic problems overnight. Many of us — perhaps all of us — know that this is not true at all. And we also know that this way of thinking is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous because it upsets the balance of the continent. It implants among us a culture and an outlook on life with a mentality and customs which are completely different from ours. This culture has a different approach to work, has different ideas about human relations and, last but not least, holds different views on the foundations of our social system: the family. [. . .]

I sincerely hope that we who have gathered here today want a Europe which is based on families rather than on immigration. We want the European Union to abandon the mentality which keeps our hands tied, and to return to the values and the politics which once made it so spectacularly successful. We want families to take centre stage in European politics once again. [. . .]

There are times when demographers must have their voices heard. We are now living in such times. The survival of our civilisation and culture is at stake. In the history of the world, not a single culture which was unable to populate the land in which it lived was able to survive; writers from antiquity extensively documented this phenomenon. I wish you success in your efforts to prove to everyone that the family and children are indeed a blessing — not only for the family itself, but for the nation and the entire European civilisation. [. . .]

I sincerely hope that, with your dedication and support, more and more European leaders will have the courage to endorse the need for family-friendly European policy.

Orbán also recently gave a speech at the World Science Forum — a U.N.-style conference organized biannually in Budapest — in which he also decided to warn about immigration, despite the topic being far less directly relevant to the attendees. He evidently thinks the subject is so existentially-important as to warn all those he can about it.

At the Science Forum, Orbán warned that Europe was living in “interesting times” (an Oriental curse, he noted) due to immigration. He said:

We must confront a flood of people pouring out of the countries of the Middle East, and meanwhile the depth of Africa has been set in motion. Millions of people are preparing to set out. [. . .] [T]he most precise definition of this is “invasion”. Yes, Europe is under invasion. [. . .] We are living in crazy times; we are blindly racing towards an uncertain outcome.

Orbán also was keen to react to the latest Paris massacres, themselves the byproduct of Islamic immigration, with the Hungarian Parliament moving to the take the EU to court for its forced migrant relocation scheme. In his latest speech to the National Assembly, Orbán emphasized the existential threat of mass immigration, the paralyzing role of political correctness and liberal-leftist “ideologies,” and the fact that such immigration is manifestly an undemocratic violation of the will of the people:

What is more humane? We Hungarians have been advocating the closure of our borders to stop the flood of people coming from the Middle East and Africa. We have been fiercely criticised for this, by those who claim that this is not a humane approach. But we are faced with a question. Which approach is more humane: to close the borders in order to stop illegal immigration, or to put at risk the lives of innocent European citizens? The right to life takes precedence over all other rights, as does the right to self-defence. No ideology or economic interest of any kind should allow us to risk the lives of European citizens. Whichever way we look at it, the EU is rudderless. It is weak, uncertain and paralysed. There are meetings and conferences galore, but there are no solutions. We are floundering in the net of ideologies, instead of taking firm action on the basis of common sense and our own cultural traditions. The leaders of several European countries are still trying to concoct schemes on how to transport in and absorb masses of immigrants, instead of jointly taking practical steps to finally stop the flow. In Brussels they are still claiming that immigration is a good thing. Meanwhile, day after day we see evidence that immigration is a bad thing. It is not a win-win situation, but lose-lose. [. . .]

We feel that the very existence of Europe is at stake. In Brussels, however, all the wrong messages are being sent: there are ever more invitations to migrants, instead of telling them firmly and honestly that what they will find here is not at all what they expect. [. . .]

We have repeatedly warned the leaders of the European Union not to invite these people to Europe. Everyone who has soberly thought through the possible consequences of unlimited mass migration can see what dangers are inherent in the uncontrolled, illegal flow of people crossing our borders. [. . .] In addition, Honourable House, they are coming from regions in which European states are currently involved in military operations. The like of this has never happened before. [. . .]

But beyond the financial and economic realities, mass migration presents three serious risks, each of which is on its own sufficient reason to hold back the flood of people. Firstly, on Friday night we witnessed the fact that mass migration represents an exponentially increasing terror threat — indeed today we are not even talking about the threat of terror, but the fact and reality of terror. Secondly, mass migration increases the risk of crime. It is not PC, not politically correct, to talk about this —indeed in the Western world this fact is publicly denied — but it is a fact for all that. [. . .] Thirdly, mass resettlement of people arriving from other continents and cultures represents a threat to our culture, way of life, customs and traditions. Now those who have lived in the delusion of multi-culturalism — and who have sought to force this delusion on us — can see where all this is leading. [. . .]

The facts and tragic events show that we need a new European policy. [. . .] [W]e must give the people the right to have a say in European decisions, because the European Union must be based on democratic foundations. [. . .]

The citizens of Europe did not want hundreds of thousands of outsiders invading their countries by crossing their borders illegally, in an uncontrolled manner. No one anywhere has given authorisation or permission for this. People want to live in security, and want to enjoy the benefits of the European Union. And it is our duty as Members of Parliament and governments throughout Europe to listen to the people’s voice.

Orbán’s reference to Europeans’ “floundering in a net of ideologies” seems to fit in very nicely with Professor Kevin MacDonald’s account in The Culture of Critique: Westerners are today morally paralyzed by pseudo-universalist ideologies that spuriously delegitimize any European ethnic self-assertion or even self-defense.

Now I am sure some people will want to poo-poo Orbán for couching his opposition to immigration and his support for European fertility in broad cultural and civilizational terms rather than explicit racial-ethnic ones. I personally do work and hope for the day when our leaders will explicitly defend our ethnic-genetic interests as well as our civilizational ones,[3] but I will never talk down to anyone who is taking more risks and is more effective than myself.

Orbán is not writing in the columns of one of our dissident online journals, which for all their excellent quality must necessarily and proudly be on the margins of a degenerate mainstream culture. (Did I mention you should subscribe to The Occidental Quarterly? That’s only $60 yearly for a U.S. print subscription to be at the cutting edge of European-American nationalist thought. And really these issues will become priceless over time, both as rare documents of the early struggle and as heirlooms to share with your grandkids, that they better understand their European heritage and responsibility.) Rather, the Hungarian Prime Minister is speaking from the bully-pulpit of a sovereign European nation. And we should not forget that Hungary is physically a small nation in a world of much greater powers — the United States, Russia, Germany . . . — who range from indifferent to intensely-hostile to ethnic European interests. Achieving something politically is not the same thing as drawing up a perfect world on a blackboard.

That said, Orbán’s words do not mean we should not speak out for ethnic European interests and we must continue work to make our views mainstream (by changing the mainstream, not our views). We like to hope that, perhaps even in a not-so-distance future, Zsolt Bayer, Thilo Sarrazin, and Kevin MacDonald will be invited to speak at official high-level conferences like the Budapest Demographic Forum, to share their wisdom with the mass of unenlightened journalists and politicians. Perhaps in a few years Orbán, rather than deporting a Richard Spencer,[4] will be inviting him to co-organize such events . . . Hey, every achievement, before being realized, is first born as a dream!

[1]Actually, The Daily Show’s ratings have plummeted since Jon Stewart Leibowitz was replaced as host by the quarter-Jewish South African mulatto Trevor Noah. Could The Daily Show’s audience of smugly ignorant liberal college students and aging White cat ladies be too racist to appreciate a colored host? Daril Deino, “Trevor Noah Doesn’t Get Much Sympathy for Appendectomy as Poor ‘The Daily Show’ Ratings Plummet 37 Percent,” Inquisitr, November 8, 2015. http://www.inquisitr.com/2551094/trevor-noah-doesnt-get-much-sympathy-for-appendectomy-as-poor-the-daily-show-ratings-plummet-37-percent/

[2]So people do not think I am being cute (and to spare you reading hundreds of pages of the misleading pseudo-egalitarians Paul Krugman and Thomas Piketty), I will be explicit and say there are essentially two causes to the growth in economic inequality over the past 40 years: 1) Borderless globalized capitalism which necessarily imports world inequality into every nation and gives oligarchs enormous opportunities to concentrate their wealth. 2) Average ethnic differences in social and educational behavior, leading to differences in economic outcomes.

[3]And I do think it is worth occasionally emphasizing that our civilization should be as sacred to us as our blood. Of course our genes are the necessary prerequisite to our civilization, but that it is the latter (e.g. science) which will ultimately enable us to reach ever-higher formers, including through the improvement of our blood. We do not simply venerate the idea of our own inbred gene pool as a be-all and end-all. We are not pious Jews of the Abe Foxman type after all.

[4]I have no particular insight as to why the Orbán government – and it was certainly a ministerial-level decision – deported Richard Spencer for attempting to organize a pro-European conference in Budapest in October 2014. I continue to think that it is most likely that “the Prince” Orbán decided he would rather see the conference shut down than risk his regime losing political capital by association with marginal (to him) “American racists and Russian imperialists.” Admittedly, given all the things Orbán has done and been attacked for by Western elites over the years, this seems a very petty, even irrationally niggardly calculation. Given that Zsolt Bayer, Orbán’s close friend and co-founder of his political party, has explicitly defended White racial interests in the context of the migration crisis, one is tempted to think that if Orbán shut down a conference out of fear with association with White Nationalists, it may well because, as the media insinuates, he is in fact “guilty” of harboring similar ideas . . .

41 replies

Comments are closed.