It’s nice to see Hungary standing up for itself against this horde of Muslim refugees. It seems like Eastern Europeans have a clearer sense of their national interests than does Germany.
From Bloomberg Business:
Orban Accuses Soros of Stoking Refugee Wave to Weaken Europe
Andras Gergely
October 30, 2015 — 12:59 AM PDTHungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban accused billionaire investor George Soros of being a prominent member of a circle of “activists” trying to undermine European nations by supporting refugees heading to the continent from the Middle East and beyond.
“His name is perhaps the strongest example of those who support anything that weakens nation states, they support everything that changes the traditional European lifestyle,” Orban said in an interview on public radio Kossuth. “These activists who support immigrants inadvertently become part of this international human-smuggling network.” …
Soros said in an e-mailed statement that a six-point plan published by his foundation helps “uphold European values” while Orban’s actions “undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national border as the obstacle.”
In other words, Soros is agreeing with Orban.
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* I don’t believe there is a conspiracy in the usual sense of the word, but Soros and many of his ilk hold views that are hostile to the idea of a blood-and-soil nation state. Offhand, I would guess that the cabal includes Gates, Buffett, Slim, Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Bush family, et al.
They don’t have to conspire in the usual sense, i.e. holding discussions in secret, plotting, planning, etc. etc. They all hold the same beliefs, and they are doing nothing to hide their intentions.
* If that were true, you’d think all their work would go into breaking Japan and Israel. If they’re going by power of the practicioners of blood and soil nationalism, and their degree of blood and soilyness, I mean. If they just want to rack up wins they should start with Liberia, maybe swing by Rwanda.
But, oddly enough, they seem really interested in Europe instead.
* The people-smuggling gangsters are only bit players in the plan drawn up and orchestrated by the likes of Soros and Merkel.
* George Soros is a devotee of Karl Popper, the theorist of the Open Society. TS Eliot criticized Popper for divorcing philosophy from moral imagination and thus severing culture from its religious roots. TS Eliot advocated the recovery of Christian community. There are no Christian thinkers in the West today who criticize the dangers of a liberal democracy and the open society.
* Then there’s the juggernauts of China and India, with their lack of diversity, obviously racist regimes, entrenched cultures of xenophobia, walls against brown people, etc.
* Does Soros ever say anything anywhere about what’s best for European people? Or does he just talk about obstacles and objectives?
* I remember writing to David Limbaugh, in response to a column of his 15 years ago, asking what was wrong with his brother that he did not talk more about immigration. Back then, Rush was still interested, at least somewhat in mainstream respectability.
Then three things happened:
– He got fired from ESPN in 2003 for making the entirely unremarkable comment that the mainstream media was desirous of seeing black NFL quarterbacks do well,
– His subsequent detainment at a general aviation airport upon his return from the Dominican Republic on trumped up drug charges (i.e. prescription ED meds)
– And finally the NFL owners denying his application to be a minority (5-10%) owner of the St. Louis Rams.
I am sure those 3 events caused him to realize that he was never going to be admitted to “the club,” despite his $500M net worth. If that’s what pushed him our direction, all I can say is “welcome Rush.”
* Rush has had ample time to publicly raise many of the issues that other lesser known conservatives who work mainly in print (e.g. Brimelow on immigration or the late Sam Francis on traditional conservatism) have consistently been making. There’s even a strong chance that he’s not entirely familiar with John Derbyshire, this blog, and others. If Pat Buchanan’s name comes up, its more of a disdain along lines of “Oh, yes, Pat. Didn’t he run for something about 20yrs ago….and lose?” In other words, Rush measures success by one thing, and that’s the bottom line.
Forget even thinking he’ll admit that he’s familiar with Jared Taylor’s writings. That last name would definitely take a courageous stance in this day and age to cop to and this man isn’t about to put himself out there for anything that might make him lose any more sponsors.
Rush’s original two conservative heroes by his own admission: Bill Buckley and George Will and both men to a certain extent supported open borders. Not exactly principled paragons of conservatism whether at the time or now.
And that’s the thing. Over the last few decades, the words “patriotic immigration” just don’t come up when you say the name Limbaugh, whereas mistakes in personal life and wanting to become an NFL owner/ESPN co-host do. Pretty much tells you all about him. He sold out years ago.
* Soros, like many old Jews of his generation, is obsessed with saving “retroactively” East European Jewry. National borders were one of the main causes of millions being trapped under genocidal regimes. Of course he wants to soften and open up nationalist, fascist regimes like Mr Orban’s. It is being done on the open, and Orban and Soros acknowledge it. No conspiracy. The use of “inadvertently” by Orban reveals that he is not a conspiracy idiot, but a honest leader doing what he thinks is the best for his people. We should respect Orban and Soros.
* I wonder which “European values” Orban is undermining? Orban’s popularity ratings are skyrocketing, while Merkel’s are tanking. Austria and Poland just moved emphatically to the right, while the nationalist party in Sweden, which has seen its support double in elections every four years for the last two decades, has already seen its support double in the one year since the 2014 elections. I guess “European values” don’t include ideas like, oh, doing what your citizens want you to do.
That, to me, has been one of the more remarkable facts of the migrant crisis. Because it’s affecting numerous countries rather than just one, we get to see how both citizens and the international press treat the way different politicians are reacting. The press and various NGOs continually talk about the obligation of democratically-elected leaders to ignore both the rule of law and the will of their voters. Democracy and rule of law no exist when either manages to serve conservative, national interests.
* We should most definitely not respect Soros or his position. He needs to be thought of as what he is, someone who has self-selected himself to be an enemy of the traditional West and traditional Western nation states.
He may be smart, but he’s not smart enough to have any idea of what a mess he’s unleashing. He’s like someone who spits in the salad and then loudly tells everyone about it. If he thinks this is smart, he might be one of those people as clueless as Merkle about estimating human behaviour.
* Whether or not you think Soros’ plans are part of some Jewish plot against white policies. His policies are objectively bad for real Jews. He covertly supported the anti Israeli Jewish group J Street. Supporting open borders in Europe with the onslaught of young Muslim men will cause Hitler’s dream to come true. Europe will be judenrein in less than 2 generations.
* Soros cleverly claims to be taking the side of people (refugees) vs. abstraction (nation-states).
The answer is that
1) Protection of ‘the refugee’ does not necessitate their mass migration to countries thousands of kilometers away from their homelands (via safe polities).
2) That far from protecting refugees, encourage exoduses inevitably leads to more deaths and more exploitation and
3) That people (citizens of nation-states) want to be protected themselves. That is, the nation-state provides protection, the ‘Open Society Foundation’ not so much.
