Battle for the West: Hungarian PM Says ‘Silent Majority’ Will Prevail Over ‘Globalist Elites’ and ‘The Soros Empire’

Orban-Speech-640x480

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has launched a stunning denunciation of globalism, declaring that the “true spirit of the age” points to a resurgence of conservative values centred on country, family, and tradition.

Source: Battle for the West: Hungarian PM Says ‘Silent Majority’ Will Prevail Over ‘Globalist Elites’ and ‘The Soros Empire’

Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, is not to everyone’s taste. He can be brash and blunt, has a disdain for political correctness that I by-and-large share, and like many or most politicians, does not seem to be averse to taking actions and making deals that benefit himself or his party. But unlike many – again, perhaps most – European politicians (and many American ones, also), he is committed to his country and his people.

And in a world where billionaire globalists like Soros and his ilk – the “globalist elites, the bureaucrats who serve them, the politicians in their pay, and the agents of the… networks that embody their interests” Orbán mentions – are attempting to inaugurate a “post-Christian and post-national era,” dedication to one’s own people and nation cover a multitude of sins. At least in my view!

Orbán said NGOs tied to George Soros, the billionaire open borders campaigner, “have penetrated all the influential forums of European decision-making.”

He described how they “operate like the activists of the Department for Agitation and Propaganda of the old Soviet Communist Party.

“We old war horses recognise them by their smell. Although the Soros troops use somewhat more refined methods, they nonetheless want to tell us what to do, what to say, what to think – and even how we should see ourselves.”

The former anti-communist campaigner explained: “Migration is not the goal of the Soros Plan, but merely its means.

“Millions of people … are being encouraged to come to Europe; indeed they are even being transported here, in order to debilitate nations and deliver the coup de grâce to Christian culture.”

Looking at the situation from my point of view, as an interested observer here in the U.S., I cannot disagree. Whether it is an organized plan, or merely opportunistic exploitation – or, most likely, a bit of each – the mass migration of the present era is clearly being viewed by corporate globalists, plutocrats, and modern-day robber barons as a golden opportunity to disrupt the ties of nation, culture, social and ethnic unity, and religion that have heretofore stood in the way (though less emphatically, in recent decades) of their desire to transform the world into a hive of drones – producers and consumers, “whose god is their belly” (Philippians 3:19), with the aforementioned plutocrats on top.

As a side-effect of this – collateral damage, if you will – Orbán accurate points out that

“the Soros Plan also seriously endangers the security of our everyday lives… In Europe’s [multicultural] countries, acts of terrorism have become regular occurrences, crime rates are increasing, violence against women has escalated, and anti-Semitism is emerging again.”

“This is what we must prevent, and this is the threat against which we must defend the country. So when we say that we must defend Hungary, we declare that we must defend work, our families, security, the authority of our laws, our achievements … we must also defend our future.”

And not only in Hungary, or even Europe! But he also offers hope:

“We see tens of millions of Europeans working hard and struggling day in, day out to keep themselves and their families afloat.

We see how they yearn for security and order.

“We see how they cleave ever more firmly to their cultural identity, and fight every day for every square metre of their normal European life,” he said.

“Reality, flesh-and-blood people, real-life instincts, real human desires, dreams and hopes will conquer the globalist elite still ruling Europe today. And they will make Europe – and within it Hungary – great again.”

That is an outcome earnestly to be hoped for, in my opinion!

Advertisements

Richard Dawkins: Islam Is ‘The Most Evil Religion In The World’ | Interface Institute

Source: Richard Dawkins: Islam Is ‘The Most Evil Religion In The World’ | Interface Institute

I am no fan of Richard Dawkins, by any means. But it is interesting, to say the least, that although this über-“liberal” militant atheist has been largely lionized by the Left through decades of criticizing Christianity, the “PC police” jump on him when he dares to turn his critique to Islam!

Do they really think they wouldn’t be the first against the wall, or lined up on their knees to be beheaded, if the likes of ISIS or Iran’s “Revolutionary Guard” were ever to come to power in the West?

“In a speech at the Cheltenham Science Festival in the U.K., Dawkins slammed the moral idiocy of cultural relativism, arguing against the ill-conceived notion that all religions are more or less the same.

“’It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,’ he stated.

“Refusing to submit to de facto blasphemy laws, Dawkins then dropped the bomb.

“’If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam,’ he said in no uncertain terms.”

Interesting, as a side note, that he uses the term “evil,” which is a theological term as well as a moral category (in the ancient world, from which our ideas of morality and ethics came, there was no clear-cut distinction between the two, as we sometimes like to pretend there is today).

If there were no objective moral standard, how could one speak of Islam as “evil”? It would simply be one of the best ideologies, at present, at achieving dominance – at least in certain spheres. And if there is a moral standard, where did it come from, in the absence of a Divine Lawgiver…?

Just sayin’…!

How Political Correctness Is Driving the Breakdown of Society | Intellectual Takeout

It’s a great thing to encourage diversity, but in doing so we should ask ourselves if that diversity encourages or discourages a common culture amongst the nation. If it does the latter, then perhaps it’s time we ask whether a doctrine of political correctness is truly healthy for the country.

Source: How Political Correctness Is Driving the Breakdown of Society | Intellectual Takeout

Very gently phrased, but very accurate! I have argued for a long time and in a variety of fora, including this one, that there are a limited number of common norms that serve as support pillars for a culture, a society, and a nation. Among these are common ethnicity, common language, common religion, common ethical and moral standards, a common history, and respect for common institutions (both political and social), customs, and traditions.

Like a well-made building, a society – or a nation – can survive one or more of its support pillars getting a little shaky, but if too many of them begin to experience breakdown, the stability and integrity of the culture, like the building, is at risk. That, unfortunately, is the break-point I see us moving towards with increasing velocity, if current trends continue.

The Just Third Way: I. A Question of Human Dignity

Modern society, if there are any doubts, is in serious trouble. Over the last two centuries, the institutions of civil, religious, and domestic society — State, Church, and Family — have been revised, reformed, and reinvented to the point that these chief props of human dignity have become, to all intents and purposes, meaningless.

Source: The Just Third Way: I. A Question of Human Dignity

“Nevertheless, the real issue is not encroaching State power, but human dignity: the sovereignty of the human person under God. Human beings, as Aristotle put it, are ‘political animals.’ Institutions, up to and including the State itself, were made by people, for people. This is so that people can meet their own wants and needs (primarily acquiring and developing virtue, ‘humanness’) by their own efforts within a justly organized society, ‘the pólis’ — hence ‘political.'”

We forget this proper order – that the State (whether a representative Constitutional Republic or a Monarchy) exists to serve the best interests of the People as a whole, not the other way ’round, and that the proper goal of people is to become more fully human, not merely to acquire wealth, at whatever cost to our humanness – at our peril.

And then there is this:

The common good is not, however, the aggregate of individual goods. It is the vast network of institutions within which individual human beings as political animals realize their individual goods, primarily the acquisition and development of virtue — ‘human-ness’ — a seemingly subtle but important difference.

Unfortunately, misunderstanding of human nature and essential human dignity has resulted in social justice and socialism being confused in both Church and State. This has changed Church and State from the chief props of human dignity outside of the Family, to the principal obstacles to virtuous human development.

Religion — ‘Church’ — has been reoriented and updated to focus almost exclusively on people’s material wants and needs. At the same time, politics — “the State” — has changed from overseeing institutions that make it possible for people to meet their own needs through their own efforts, to meeting them directly, after those in power decide what wants and needs are legitimate [emphasis added].

Follow the link for a much fuller and more detailed discussion of these issues.

Christianity in Europe is dying out, says Russian Orthodox leader | Interface Institute

Metropolitan Hilarion has called Christians to unite in fighting the imminent death of Christianity in Europe. He also stated that Christians in the region “must keep on defending their values and heed the cries of the persecuted and suffering believers” throughout the world.

Source: Christianity in Europe is dying out, says Russian Orthodox leader | Interface Institute

Metropolitan Hilarion called for unity between and among Christians:

“Christians in Europe must strive to defend their values ​​on which the continent has been built for centuries, and listen to the lamentations and sufferings of Christians from all over the globe,” he continued.

Following National Anthem Protests, the NFL is No Longer the Most Popular Sport in America | Tribunist

As the controversy surrounding the national anthem protests continues to divide football fans, the NFL now has a new challenge it must come to grips with: not being country’s favorite sport. A recent poll showed that the number of people who view the league positively has dropped significantly and that shift has allowed baseball to claim the top spot.

Source: Following National Anthem Protests, the NFL is No Longer the Most Popular Sport in America | Tribunist

I have avoided dwelling on the “taking a knee” protests at American football games, with the exception of this post on October the 1st, but I thought it would be worth mentioning that these protests are indeed having an effect – just not the one intended!

As reported by the Daily Mail, a Winston Group survey [shows] that the favorable ratings for the NFL have fallen from 57 percent at the end of August to 44 percent at the end of September, marking a 13 percent shift in just one month.

The unfavorable rating for the NFL is now the highest among all of the mainstream professional leagues, coming in at 40 percent. At the end of September, baseball’s favorable rating was 65 percent.

The survey also showed that the NFL’s core fans, typically considered to be men aged 34 to 54, have started to turn on the sport, with favorable ratings dropping from 73 to 42 [a drop of nearly 30%] and unfavorable ratings rising from 19 to 47 between August and September.

This turn may reflect a number of factors, ranging from a (well-founded) distrust of the premises of these protests, to a feeling that athletes being paid millions to play a game don’t have any standing to be complaining about discrimination, to the belief that professional sports were a place to get away from politics for a while, and now that refuge has been eliminated, to the point – underscored by the picture, above – that NFL players are protesting “on the clock,” while they’re supposed to be doing their jobs.

There is, in my opinion, justification for all of these; and I suspect that for most former National Football League fans (of whose ranks I was never a member, so I can hardly be said to be “boycotting” a sport I rarely watched anyway), there are elements of all of the above playing into the dynamic.

Whatever the source, however, the effect is clear: (former) NFL fans are “voting with their feet” – and their wallets. Some teams are beginning to realize that their actions have backfired, and are beginning to backpedal. It remains to be seen if others will follow suit… and even if they do, whether NFL fans will be quick to forgive or forget.

What Does Sir Walter Scott Say About Love of Country?  | Crisis Magazine

There is part of a poem by Sir Walter Scott often titled “My Native Land.” Back when poetry was appreciated and even memorized, its first lines were well known. It went:

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

‘This is my own, my native land!’

Source: What Does Sir Walter Scott Say About Love of Country?  – Crisis Magazine

While written from a Roman Catholic perspective, one need certainly not be of the Roman observance to find much in this article by John Horvat II, blogging for Crisis magazine, to be of value. He notes, inter alia, that

Love of country is not imposed. It comes naturally as a projection of the love of parents and family. According to the Catholic Church’s teachings, love of country rests on the demands of nature and religion. Both require the proper behavior of children toward parents to whom they owe their existence.

Indeed it is true that love of country, like love for one’s own ethno-cultural heritage, is neither more nor less than love for family writ large. Horvat continues,

Similarly, both impose obligations on citizens toward their nation…

The most fundamental requirement is that the citizen exhibit reasonable esteem and love of country. Back when civics was taught in schools, people learned to display this appreciation by showing interest in the nation’s history and institutions, and respect for its symbols. People learned how to participate in civic activities such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the playing and singing of the national anthem, and the proper lowering and folding of the flag.

However, it continues, genuine patriotism “calls upon citizens to disregard their self-interest and sacrifice for the common good in times of disaster and war,” up to and including “that sacred duty to sacrifice one’s life for the nation so that others might freely live in peace.” In return, it “requires from the living that they remember and respect those who made that ultimate sacrifice.” But there is more:

“Patriotism’s second aspect is less structured. It involves a great sensitivity to a particular place inside the nation. Sir Walter Scott understood well how people normally come to develop natural preferences for the setting where they were born or raised. They savor its panorama, land, climate, or foods. Even rugged, bleak or inhospitable places can take on special meaning for people. They prefer their own nation in general and their own region in particular, even when other places are better endowed by God.

Thus, true patriotism grows out of, evokes, and requires attachment both to the people of a country, and to its land – what some have referred to as “blood and soil.” It is these things which make love of country tangible and personal, not merely theoretical and abstract. Without them, it is merely an intellectual allegiance, which can be changed, like one’s style of dress, if one has a change of heart, dislikes the current political leadership, or simply on a whim.

It is, as the old saying goes, “a mile wide (although it may actually be a good deal narrower) and an inch deep”:

“This intimate connection with one’s native land is weakened by a culture that belittles nations, regions, and their God-embedded treasures. Postmodern individuals are told to pursue their own happiness wherever and whenever it appears. In a globalized world, the perception of place is reduced to a mere portal from which one might access goods and services.”

“Ask not,” the secular corporate globalist exhorts the jaded postmodernist hipster – brought up since birth to the drumbeat of a twisted form of “multiculturalism” that refuses to respect cultures as distinct and unique to the historic and geographic context that shaped them, and valuable precisely because of that distinctiveness, but rather insists upon lumping them together in a mish-mash of supposed “diversity” that is really all about sameness, and thus dishonours the integrity of each of them – “ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you!” John F. Kennedy would not, I think, approve.

Horvat then applies his premise to a situation that is very much in the news today:

“The erosion of what undergirds patriotism is the tragedy of the present controversy over the national anthem. So many of the natural influences that foster a love of one’s native land—religion, community and family—are no longer strong. Few unifying rituals, like the national anthem, remain to bind individuals together as a people.”

I have long said – and indeed, have commented in this blog – that there are only so many common, binding factors that, like the structural pillars of a building, support and hold a society together.

Besides the obvious unified government and legal structure, these include common ethnicity (until 1965 and its changes in immigration law, people of non-European heritage never – even during the height of slavery – made up more than 10% of the population of the United States, and the real demographic changes did not kick in until the dawn of the 21st century), common language, common religious understanding (which need not mean a single Established Church, but does require a common basic adherence to, for instance, the Judeo-Christian moral and religious tradition), and respect for common institutions, history, and cultural traditions.

A society can survive without each and every one of these being strong, but like the aforementioned pillars, with every one that is weakened or kicked over, the stability and integrity of the overall structure is weakened, as well. And each and every one of these is under varying forms of attack in today’s America, and indeed throughout the Western world. This should be a matter of grave concern to anyone who believes that there is anything of value in Western civilization in general, or the United States of America in particular.

But perhaps the kneeling controversy in professional football – in which many NFL players have chosen to “take a knee” during the National Anthem, as referenced above – has had a positive and salutary effect in the larger cultural struggle, unlikely as that may seem: perhaps, just perhaps, it has given ordinary Americans, who have long been vaguely troubled at the direction our country seems to have taken in recent years and decades, something to sink their teeth into… a place to take a stand. As Horvat notes,

“That is what is so surprising about the healthy backlash against the football theatrics. Despite the weakening of patriotism everywhere, those reacting have taken its vestiges and rekindled in their hearts a fiery defense of the nation.

“They have taken as their focus patriotism’s most sublime aspect: the sacrifice of those who died for the country [by reminding us that disrespect for the flag also disrespects those who have died for it, and for us]. They have made it a point of honor that the country and its symbols be respected.

“These are Americans who… see that no other place can offer what America has given them. This is not a stupid nationalism, which despises other nations and peoples. Rather, it is patriotism. It is that deep and natural love for ‘my own, my native land!’

“Thus, an unlikely skirmish on the gridiron has turned into something beyond that of a simple football game. It is now a battle that touches on the core of what America is and should be—a people called to self-sacrifice, ‘sacred duty’ and the practice of the virtue of piety.”

And this – if we are not, as a culture, lulled back to sleep by the next round of “bread and circuses” – may be a very good thing: a sign of the pendulum swinging back toward sanity, the first real stirrings of a national (re)awakening. Or so we may hope and pray!

Pro Deo et Patria.

(“For God and Country.”)