[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Hungary PM: Europe Under Migrant Invasion – Those Who Don’t Block it at Their Borders Will be Lost Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, said at a massive rally that Europe and Hungary are in the middle of a civilisational struggle. The rally marked the 170th anniversary of anti-Habsburg Revolution of 1848 and was preceded by a large ‘Peace March’. “We are expected to willingly hand over [our country] within a few decades…to foreigners from other continents who don’t speak our language, respect our culture, our laws or way of life, Orban said. According to the Prime Minister, “Hungary and Europe face a mass migration wave which endangers the way of life of their peoples, Europe is under invasion. The situation is that those who don’t block migration at their borders will be lost” With his eyes on the election of 8 April, Orban vowed to fight for the future of his country: “This is our homeland, our life, and since we don’t have another one, we will fight for it till the very end and we will never give it up,” he said. He also warned Western Europe has already changed in large part: ‘The youth of Western Europe will still live to see when they become a minority in their own country and lose the only place in the world to call home,’ he said. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest With his eyes on the election of 8 April, Orban vowed to fight for the future of his country: “This is our homeland, our life, and since we don’t have another one, we will fight for it till the very end and we will never give it up,” he said. Europe should wipe out the invaders. Or they will be wiped out later.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0) According to the Prime Minister, “Hungary and Europe face a mass migration wave which endangers the way of life of their peoples, Europe is under invasion. The situation is that those who don’t block migration at their borders will be lost” The world is waking up. We already have Trump in the USA that understands the issue.
#3. To: buckeroo (#2) Does that mean you will support Trump in 2020?
#4. To: buckeroo, *Border Invasion* (#2) We already have Trump in the USA that understands the issue. Trump understands sanctuary, and an amnesty "bill of love". He understands that he can lie and flip flop, and his idiot base will say that there's a coup against him.
![]() #5. To: A K A Stone (#3) Does that mean you will support Trump in 2020? How on Earth can I publickly support a BILLIONAIRE that is already a sitting POTUS? A couple of bucks? Or show up at a MAGA rally? There are so many choices that I decided to use your thread for a comment. Now, you want to make that comment into reality into a political action plan? All from a minor comment? Man, no wonder you believe in Jesus.
#6. To: buckeroo (#5) Man, no wonder you believe in Jesus. While thank you buckeroo. George Washington did too. You would have been with the British against the revolution.
#7. To: hondo68 (#4) You sound like Barack Obama, Clinton and Pelosi. You leftists are a pathetic lot.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6) Man, no wonder you believe in Jesus. So do people who think the world is flat and that magic is real. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments. #9. To: A K A Stone (#6) You would have been with the British against the revolution. If I were consistent with my philosophical belief system, I would have been with the British. But the truth is that I would have been pro-British until the Hessians and Redcoats marched through, and then have gotten so pissed off that I would have set my philosophy aside and sided with the rebels. No, wait, that's not right either. I'm French and Dutch and Irish and Basque (which is to say, Spanish) and Scandinavian...and they all did not get on with the English, so I would have been opposed to the British pretty much no matter what they did, and whether or not they were right or wrong in some philosophical way. which doesn't stop me, in 2018, from taking the philosophical position that the rebels were wrong...even though I probably would have been on their side in the actual fight. Once the animal spirits get flowing, principles take a back seat. "La philosophie triomphe aisement sur des maux du passe et les maux de l'avenir, mais les maux du present triomphent sur elle." "Philosophy easily defeats evils past and evils future, but evils present defeat philosophy." - La Rochefoucauld.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9) in 2018, from taking the philosophical position that the rebels were wrong...even though I probably would have been on their side in the actual fight. Once the animal spirits get flowing, principles take a back seat. Interesting. John Adams Esq. didn't immediately support the rebellion either. In the end *did* he follow his principles OR channel his "animal spirits"? I guess it would have depended on how close you were to the initial area and beef. And whether you, Samuel Adams and Paul Revere (part Huguenot btw) would have hit it off over brewskis and seen the fight from their perspetive. https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/samuel-adams
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9) Here's another good one from François de La Rochefoucauld: "Old men delight in giving good advice as a consolation for the fact that they can no longer set bad examples.”
#12. To: A K A Stone (#0) Hungary PM: Europe Under Migrant Invasion – Those Who Don’t Block it at Their Borders Will be Lost Most of Europe is already lost due to its own conformity to group stupidity.
#13. To: Liberator (#10) (Edited) In the end *did* he follow his principles OR channel his "animal spirits"? I know what my many-times-great grandfather Philip Schuyler did. He fought the British. I know what my Baaque-Huguenot ancestors in New Jersey did: they fought the British. I know what my Stuart roots in Virginia did: they fought the British. And I know what my French folks back in France did: fought the British, everywhere and anywhere, out of habit. That's all four quarters of my shield. The same blood as flows in my veins were moved to fight - and for what it's worth there's no countervailing consanguinity flowing through my veins to temper my desire towards not shedding English blood. They're not my people. They're pretty much my hereditary enemy. Plus, I know that while my nature is to support the police and the government, the abuses lately have caused me to become very pissed with the police, and to no longer believe them when they claim self-defense. I'm not ready to cheer for their demise, but I've lost my trust for them, and I've become indifferent to their claims. So, as a philosophical principle, I don't approve of killing people over taxes. It's not Christian. I oppose rebellion against kings. BUT if the kings are tyrannical (which George III really was not) or if their agents are and the kings don't stop them (which WAS the case with King George and the English government), if I don't feel a blood tie, and I already have tribal animosity (French vs. English, Irish vs. English, Dutch vs. English and Spanish vs. English; also Catholic vs. English), I suspect that I would have been highly susceptible to the argument that this American rebellion really wasn't about taxes or law and order, but was justified. If I just had knowledge of the facts, with no national flags or religions or languages or family history tied up with it, it'd be pretty easy to side with the English. But hang the Union Jack on it and all of their obnoxious British attitudes, and I'd be easily persuaded that these circumstances were...DIFFERENT...from the Biblical principle, to set the philosophy aside, and to figure that Christ would forgive me in the end anyway, and "va t'en guerre" against the English and enjoy kicking their asses...at least until I got shot.
#14. To: Liberator (#11) My favorite of his: "La beaute de Liancourt ne diminue point la beaute de Fontainebleau. On est permis d'apprecier les deux." Literally referring to castles: "The beauty of Liancourt does not diminish the beauty of Fontainebleau: one is permitted to appreciate them both." Figuratively, of course, he was speaking of women. The other one of his I find myself remembering a lot is "When we defeat one of our vices it is generally not because of our strength but their weakness."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|