Share with your friends










Submit

In the last decade or so, what is estimated by the PEW Forum to be 6% of the population in Europe have committed the vast majority of terrorist attacks. When you look at the countries that this 6% have built up, which they are leaving from in order to enter Europe, this disproportionate over-representation should come as no surprise. Furthermore, when you look at the crime rates in the cities where this 6% tends to concentrate, the point seems to be made clear. The question is, do we want this religious group shaping our culture in the same way it has shaped its own?

This is a question that is being swiftly, sharply, and strongly answered by Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, who announced the “end of liberal democracy” during his recent acceptance speech before the lawmakers in Budapest after his recent re-election in April.

This is a direction that Mr. Orban has been pursuing for some time now, previously having noted that, “the defining aspect of today’s world can be articulated as a race to figure out a way of organizing communities, a state that is most capable of making a nation competitive.” and that, “a trending topic in thinking is understanding systems that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies, maybe not even democracies, [are] making nations successful. Today, the stars of international analyses are Singapore, China, India, Turkey, Russia.”

Mr. Orban has now definitively stated that, “We have replaced a shipwrecked liberal democracy with a 21st-century Christian democracy, which guarantees people’s freedom, security,” and that, “It supports the traditional family model of one man and one woman, keeps anti-Semitism at bay, and gives a chance for growth.”

Orban is notable for having campaigned against the billionaire Mr. George Soros, who’s Popperian ideals of an Open Society are not only a threat to nation-states like Hungary, but also to nation states like Israel, both of which have their own interests in mind as any sensible nation would. Mr. Soros is famous for his market manipulation and pump and dump schemes, which have devastated national economies from that of the the U.K.’s (he is famously regarded as having “broken the banks” through currency dumping) to that of Indonesia’s, and some even regard him as having been responsible for the fall of the USSR through having amassed shares, hiking prices, and through the dumping assets acquired during the liberalization of the Soviet economy in the 1990’s.

Orban has also assisted and participated in the formation of the Visegraad Group and Central European Defence Force, both of which Poland is also a major member. These intergovernmental or supranational organizations work within the EU to push for a more nationalist and Christian agenda in order to combat the Migrant Crisis that is plaguing Europe. While being highly contested by the EU, these nations and organization offer an alternative model of growth with which nations can align under, with the Eurasian Union being a similar type of example grounded in a similar sense of national sovereignty. As a way of tactically countering the EU’s border policy in particular, Hungary has built their artificial borders within their country’s borders, so that they can keep immigrants out without officially expelling them.

Hungary is in a unique position insofar as the Prime Minister has the authority to actually act on executive power relegated to him by the President, and there no term limits for this position. Furthermore, after the recent election, Orban has effectively secured his party status as the single ruling party. His party, Fidesz, as well as the major opposition party, Jobbik, both run on a very similar platform as well, making a coalition a possibility, although perhaps unlikely due to bad blood between party members. Were this to take place, Hungary could effectively become a single-party state.

Hungary is also a unitary state, meaning that the executive authorities have greater power over the various sub-national units or administrative divisions that constitute the nation. This gives Orban a major avenue towards further generating popular support by governing regions in his party’s favor. In other words, it is unlikely one will see Sanctuary Cities in Hungary anytime soon.

When engaging in policy analysis of countries like Hungary, we must look at what can be learned from them. Hungary and Poland both have defended themselves against terrorist attacks, they have successfully reduced the numbers and risk associated with the “refugee” crisis, they seem to be experiencing a high level of GDP growth with high scores on the HDI, and they are coming together on the grounds of mutual national strength.

If Canada were to separate from the Commonwealth, which is something we should seriously consider as a means of gaining sovereignty, we would need to consider how we structure our legislature and state, and there is definitely something to be said for a unitary state model like Hungary’s, provided that the the interests of the nation are being represented by those who wield the popular, national will.

There is something to be said for establishing more Christian standards on social and political conduct (instead of liberal democratic standards) to offset the risks of a unitary state being controlled by those who care not for the nations of the West. There is something to be said for the protectionism and economic nationalism pursued by parties like Fidesz and Jobbik, and there is something to be learned from the steady consolidation into a more single ideology and single party state that Hungary has become.

Democracies are always closing in one way or another. Does one have regional representation or popular representation? Does one have proportional electoral systems or pluralist systems? Does one have one set of standards on acceptable policy or an opposing set of standards (can democracy be voted away)? Does one have term limits or not? Does the number of parties make a difference if the public is completely behind one? Should there be a rigid set of standards on who can vote or should there be a standard that allows everyone to vote? And what about those who can run? And finally, should the system allow for the rule of the majority or the rule of the various minority groups and identities that make it up?

No matter what, Democracies close in one way or another. The key is making sure they close in our favour and not in favour of the interests of foreign nations, subversive individuals, and hostile out-groups.

* If you would like to access premium content and videos here at The Red Ensign, consider becoming a subscriber: www.redensign.ca/subscribe. Only monthly subscribers get media access to interviews and behind-the-scenes engagements of the Canadian Nationalist Party. If you are not completely satisfied, we offer a 100% money-back guarantee. You may cancel at any time.

Author

Maurice Porter

Located in Ontario, Canada, Maurice Porter is a journalist who focuses on history and current affairs from a nationalist perspective. Having attended university in Waterloo, Porter studied history, politics, and philosophy from a Western perspective. Maurice manages the MacDonald Institute and wrote the MacDonald Mandate, which is currently being used by the Canadian Nationalist Party.