There was a time, not too long ago, when I thought Jobbik was pretty great. Then I started to learn about their bizarre love for Moslems. And it has all been downhill from there.

Times of Israel:

The head of Hungary’s far-right Jobbik party said Monday he will “prune” racist views from the organization and become the main challenger of Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz party in the 2018 elections.

Jobbik president, Gabor Vona, said that their candidate’s narrow victory in a rural by-election on Sunday shows the party has a big chance to defeat Fidesz three years from now.

…

On Sunday over 10,000 people joined Hungary’s annual “March of Life” commemorating the Holocaust, as World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder denounced the Jobbik party as “extremist.”

In a speech at the end of the procession, Lauder called Jobbik an “extremist party that promotes hate.”

Condemning a Jobbik deputy who recently spat on a Holocaust memorial in Budapest, Lauder said the party damaged Hungary’s image abroad.

“Jobbik may think they are true Hungarians trying to save Hungary, but Jobbik hurts Hungary,” said Lauder, an American whose grandparents were Hungarian.

“The Hungarian Jewish community is not going anywhere. We march today to say: We are here. We are alive. And here we will remain,” he added.

What exactly does the party even stand for at this point? If they are bowing to Holocaust-marching Jews, claiming to love the gypsies, then what is their purpose for existing? Just to gain control of the government and do the same thing that the current government is doing?

The sick part is that it is these “extremist” ideas that they seek to “purge” that made them popular in the first place. Now they are saying they want to get rid of the core ideas that made them popular in order to become more popular – how does this make sense? All that is going to happen is that they are going to lose their base of support, and thus their momentum.

That said, they probably will be the next government, simply because the current one is becoming so hated and there aren’t any other options. But they probably won’t even bother to pull out of the EU at this point.

Jobbik is now claiming to be the second biggest party in Hungary. This isn’t so much a claim as it is a fact, given their having placed second in the last election cycle.

Budapest Times:

Radical nationalist Jobbik has by now become the second strongest party in Hungary and “this tendency is growing,” the leader of the party said on Monday, after a party board meeting. Disputes are “raging” within ruling Fidesz, Gábor Vona told a press conference, while the political left has completely fallen apart.

In their stead, Jobbik has become the most stable political force, he insisted. In connection with the upcoming by-election for a vacated parliamentary seat in Veszprém on 22 February, he said that although the city was a Fidesz “stronghold”, he was optimistic Jobbik would prevail.

The by-election will be held for taking up the parliamentary mandate of Tibor Navracsics, of the ruling Fidesz party, who became EU commissioner in October 2014. On the other by-election set for 12 April in the Tapolca ward in Veszprém County, Vona said that constituency is “an exciting battlefield” where the race was wide open.

Vona said there was “thirst for peace in Hungary” and the response to that is a well-defined programme offered by a “composed force.”

The question now is, how much have they or will they compromise, ideologically, in order to make the distance between second and first party?  Hopefully not much.

Gabor Vona, the leader of Jobbik, gave a weird interview on the 11th to Hir24, which is available in English on Hungary Today.

Here are the weirdest parts.

– Is Jobbik a radical or a far-right party?

– Definitely not far-right.

…

– Do you think the Holocaust took place?

– I do,

– With as many victims as we learnt of?

– I haven’t studied this side of the historical question. However, I am sure both as a historian and as a teacher of history that the Holocaust happened and very many Jewish people fell victim to it.

– Do you condemn the Holocaust?

– Of course. I condemn all human sacrifices. However, let me note that it is a mistake to turn the Holocaust into a political rather than a historical matter – on the side of both political activity denying its existence and political bludgeoning with it.

Please note, I am specifically posting the weird parts.  You can go read the full thing.  He does denounce “gypsy crime” and make a few other light-weight rightish statements, but the whole tone is “trust us, we’re normal mate.”

It appears that the party believes they have reached a peak with a hardcore audience, and now need to go toward a Le Pen style soft nationalism.

And please note: I am not condemning the party.  I am condemning specific statements, which I believe are extremely out of order.

Do we recall when Jobbik condemned Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer as “American racists” that they didn’t wish to be associated with?

Of course, our Hungarian readers will have comments on all of this.  As always, I don’t speak for other countries.  I merely give comment.

Jobbik recently won a lawsuit against a paper calling it a “far-right” party.  The party claims to be regular right.

By traditional standards, they are simply regular right, as their positions are all simply right.

Attempting to dispute the ruling – that is, to cry about it – the IB Times has collected a series of awesome quotes from the party.

1. Sandor Porzse, a prominent member of Jobbik, told a French website in a 2012 interview that Hungarians “are victims of a Jewish conspiracy to colonise our land and rob our resources”.

2. Marton Gyongyosi, another member of the party, caused a controversy in 2012 when he called for a list of Jews who pose a “national security risk”

3. Gabor Vona, the party leader, said in 2010 that “the Land Law has to be amended so that the Solomons cannot buy land in Hungary”.

4. The Magyar Garda, the 3,000-strong paramilitary group founded by Vona and later disbanded by a court, started calling the capital “Judapest”. Orthodox Jews in the supermarket were saluted with a raised arm “Heil Hitler” and posters of the socialist party were defaced with Stars of David.

5. In 2014 Tibor Ágoston, the deputy chairman of Jobbik’s Debrecen and Hajdú-Bihar County organisation, referred to the Holocaust as “holoscam”.

6. Krisztina Morvai, an MEP for the party and Jobbik’s presidential candidate once ranted: “So-called proud Hungarian Jews should go back to playing with their tiny little circumcised tails.”

7. However, Jobbik’s main target is Hungary’s Roma, or gypsy, minority which accounts for around 8-9% of the population. Jobbik says it wants to stop “gypsy crime,” create ghettoes for Roma “deviants” and create a rural “gendarmerie” of the sort last seen in Hungary before World War II.

A historical milestone has been reached by Jobbik on the European elections held on May 25. The right-radical party got the second place by gaining 14,8 percent of the votes and can send three members to the European Parliament.

“I have an important announcement to make. As of today the second strongest party of Hungary is called Jobbik” the president of the party, Gabor Vona told at the election’s night, gaining huge applause from the public. Vona thanked the activity of the supporters of the party during the campaign, reminding his audience what a shameful attack Jobbik had to face from the side of governing Fidesz. It is known that the governing party even used the state intelligence services for its political purposes in the campaign against Jobbik, when it instigated a smear-campaign against Jobbik MEP Béla Kovács.

Jobbik has made significant and continuous progress at every election so for, yet, the main goal, defeating the Socialist Party (MSZP) and attaining the second position could not be reached. Now it has been achieved, Vona said. The good result has proven as well, that Jobbik cannot be broken, it is a “stable party that is hard as concrete” added the president of the party.  Now, Jobbik is ready to be the challenger of the governing Fidesz on the next elections.

However, Jobbik still has to work a lot to overtake Fidesz. The governing party, despite the fact that it had lost approximately 1 million voters still gained 51 percent at the EP elections, that were characterized by an extremely low turnout of 27 percent. At the same time, the Socialist Party reached only 10 percent, and after having lost its position as the second party it is now threatened by the secessionist left-wing group of the ex-PM Ferenc Gyurcsany.

The low turnout at the EP election was a clear message from the Hungarian people, showing that they disapprove of the current direction of the European Union, Gabor Vona announced. “We want a Europe but not this kind of union” he stressed. The president of the party told that Jobbik had remained the only force that stood on the side of the Hungarian people.

In his speech Gabor Vona congratulated the three newly elected MEPs of Jobbik, Krisztina Morvai, Zoltan Balczo and Bela Kovacs and reminded his audience that the winners of the future are usually the second-placed of the past. In the spirit of this he insisted on working hard to reach electoral victory in 2018.

“Actually, the truth is that the West really is in great need of »defense«, but only against itself and its own tendencies, which, if they are pushed to their conclusion, will lead inevitably to its ruin and destruction; it is therefore »reform« of the West that is called for instead of »defense against the East«, and if this reform were what it should be—that is to say, a restoration of tradition—it would entail as a natural consequence an understanding with the East.” — René Guénon

1. Euroatlantism and Anti-Traditionalism

Today’s globalized world is in crisis. That is a fact. However, it is not quite clear what this crisis is. In order to get an answer, first we need to define what globalization means. For us, it does not mean the kind of public misconception which says that the borders between the world’s various economic and cultural spheres will gradually disappear and the planet becomes an organic network built upon billions of interactions. Those who believe in this also add that history is thus no longer a parallel development of great spheres, but the great common development of the entire world. Needless to say, this interpretation considers globalization as a positive and organic process from the aspect of historical development.

From our aspect, however, globalization is an explicitly negative, anti-traditionalist process. Perhaps we can understand this statement better if we break it down into components. Who is the actor, and what is the action and the object of globalization? The actor of globalization — and thus crisis production — is the Euro-Atlantic region, by which we mean the United States and the great economic-political powers of Western Europe. Economically speaking, the action of globalization is the colonization of the entire world; ideologically speaking, it means safeguarding the monopolistic, dictatorial power of liberalism; while politically speaking, it is the violent export of democracy. Finally, the object of globalization is the entire globe. To sum it up in one sentence: globalization is the effort of the Euro-Atlantic region to control the whole world physically and intellectually. As processes are fundamentally defined by their actors that actually cause them, we will hereinafter name globalization as Euroatlantism. The reason for that is to clearly indicate that we are not talking about a kind of global dialogue and organic cooperation developing among the world’s different regions, continents, religions, cultures, and traditions, as the neutrally positive expression of “globalization” attempts to imply, but about a minor part of the world (in particular the Euro-Atlantic region) which is striving to impose its own economic, political, and intellectual model upon the rest of the world in an inorganic manner, by direct and indirect force, and with a clear intention to dominate it.

As we indicated at the beginning of this essay, this effort of Euroatlantism has brought a crisis upon the entire world. Now we can define the crisis itself. Unlike what is suggested by the news and the majority of pub­lic opinion, this crisis is not primarily an economic one. The problem is not that we cannot justly distribute the assets produced. Although it is true, it is not the cause of the problem and the crisis; it is rather the consequence of it. Neither is this crisis a political one, that is to say: the root cause is not that the great powers and international institutions fail to establish a liveable and harmonious status quo for the whole world; it is just a consequence as well. Nor does this crisis result from the clashes of cul­tures and religions, as some strategists believe; the prob­lem lies deeper than that. The world’s current crisis is an intellectual one. It is a crisis of the human intellect, and it can be characterized as a conflict between tradition­al values (meaning conventional, normal, human) and anti-traditionalism (meaning modern, abnormal, subhu­man), which is now increasingly dominating the world. From this aspect, Euroatlantism — that is to say, global­ism — can be greatly identified with anti-traditionalism. So the situation is that the Euro-Atlantic region, which we can simply but correctly call the West, is the crisis it­self; in other words, it carries the crisis within, so when it colonizes the world, it in fact spreads an intellectual virus as well. So this is the anti-traditionalist aspect of the world’s ongoing processes, but does a traditionalist pole exist, and if it does, where can we find it?

2. Eurasianism as a Geopolitical Concept

Geographically speaking, Eurasia means the continental unity of Europe and Asia, which stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific. As a cultural notion, Eurasianism was a concept conceived by Russian emigrants in the early 20th century. It proved to be a fertile framework, since it has been reinterpreted several times and will surely continue to be so in the future as well. Nicolai Sergeyevich Trubetskoy is widely considered as the founder of Eurasianism, while Alexandr Dugin is referred to as the key ideologist of the concept. Trubetskoy was one of the greatest thinkers of the Russian emigration in the early 20th century, who attempted to redefine Russia’s role in the turbulent post-World War I times, looking for new goals, perspectives, and meanings. On the one hand, he rejected Pan-Slavism and replaced the Slavophile ideology with a kind of “Turanophile” one, as Lajos Pálfalvi put it in an essay. He tore Russian thinking out of the Eastern Slavic framework and found Genghis Khan as a powerful antetype, the founder of a Eurasian state. Trubetskoy says that it was the Khan’s framework left behind that Moscow’s Tsars filled with a new Orthodox sense of mission after the Mongol occupation. In his view, the European and Western orientation of Peter the Great is a negative disruption of this process, a cultural disaster, while the desirable goal for Russia is to awaken as a part of Eurasia.

So Eurasianism was born as a uniquely Russian concept but not at all for Russia only, even though it is often criticized for being a kind of Great Russia concept in a cultural-geopolitical disguise. Ukrainian author Mikola Ryabchuk goes as far as to say that whoever uses this notion, for whatever reason, is basically doing nothing but revitalizing the Russian political dominance, tearing the former Soviet sphere out of the “European political and cultural project”. Ryabchuk adds that there is a certain intellectual civil war going on in the region, particularly in Russia and also in Turkey about the acceptance of Western values. So those who utter the word “Eurasianism” in this situation are indirectly siding with Russia. The author is clearly presenting his views from a pro-West and anti-Russian aspect, but his thoughts are worth looking at from our angle as well.

As a cultural idea, Eurasianism was indeed created to oppose the Western, or to put it in our terms, the Euro- Atlantic values. It indeed supposes an opposition to such values and finds a certain kind of geopolitical reference for it. We must also emphasize that being wary of the “European political and cultural project” is justified from the economic, political, and cultural aspects as well. If a national community does not wish to comply, let’s say, with the role assigned by the European Union, it is not a negative thing at all; in fact, it is the sign of a sort of caution and immunity in this particular case. It is especially so, if it is not done for some economic or nationalistic reason, but as a result of a different cultural-intellectual approach. Rendering Euro-Atlantic “values” absolute and indisputable means an utter intellectual damage, especially in the light of the first point of our essay. So the opposition of Eurasianism to the Euro-Atlantic world is undeniably positive for us. However, if we interpreted Eurasianism as mere anti-Euro-Atlantism, we would vulgarly simplify it, and we would completely fail to present an alternative to the the anti-traditionalist globalization outlined above.

What we need is much more than just a reciprocal pole or an alternative framework for globalization. Not only do we want to oppose globalization horizontally but, first and foremost, also vertically. We want to demonstrate an intellectual superiority to it. That is to say, when establishing our own Eurasia concept, we must point out that it means much more for us than a simple geographical notion or a geopolitical idea that intends to oppose Euro-Atlantism on the grounds of some tactical or strategic power game. Such speculations are valueless for me, regardless of whether they have some underlying, latent Russian effort for dominance or not. Eurasianism is basically a geographical and/or political framework, therefore, it does not have a normative meaning or intellectual centre. It is the task of its interpretation and interpreter to furnish it with such features.

3. Intellectual Eurasianism – Theories and Practice

We have stated that we cannot be content with anti-Euro-Atlantism. Neither can we be content with a simple geographical and geopolitical alternative, so we demand an intellectual Eurasianism. If we fail to provide this intellectual centre, this meta-political source, then our concept remains nothing but a different political, economic, military, or administrative idea which would indeed represent a structural difference but not a qualitative breakthrough compared to Western globalization. Politically speaking, it would be a reciprocal pole, but not of a superior quality. This could lay the foundations for a new cold or world war, where two anti-traditionalist forces confront each other, like the Soviet Union and the United States did, but it surely won’t be able to challenge the historical process of the spread of anti-traditional­ism. However, such challenge is exactly what we consider indispensable. A struggle between one globalization and another is nonsensical from our point of view. Our problem with Euro-Atlantism is not its Euro-Atlantic but its anti-traditionalist nature. Contrary to that, our goal is not to construct another anti-traditionalist framework, but to present a supranational and traditionalist response to the international crisis. Using Julius Evola’s ingenious term, we can say that Eurasianism must be able to pass the air test.

At this point, we must look into the question of why we can’t give a traditionalist answer within a Euro-Atlantic framework. Theoretically speaking, the question is reasonable since the Western world was also developing within a traditional framework until the dawn of the modern age, but this opportunity must be excluded for several reasons. Firstly, it is no accident that anti-traditionalist modernism developed in the West and that is where it started going global from. The framework of this essay is too small for a detailed presentation of the multi-century process of how modernism took roots in and grew out of the original traditionalist texture of Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian thinking and culture, developing into today’s liberal Euroatlantism. For now, let us state that the anti-traditionalist turn of the West had a high historical probability. This also means that the East was laid on much stronger traditionalist foundations and still is, albeit it is gradually weakening. In other words, when we are seeking out a geopoliti­cal framework for our historic struggle, our choice for Eurasianism is not in the least arbitrary. The reality is that the establishment of a truly supranational traditionalist framework can only come from the East. This is where we can still have a chance to involve the leading polit­ical-cultural spheres. The more we go West, the weaker the centripetal power of Eurasianism is, so it can only expect to have small groups of supporters but no major backing from the society.

The other important question is why we consider traditionalism as the only intellectual centre that can fecundate Eurasianism. The question “Why Eurasia?” can be answered much more accurately than “Why the metaphysical Tradition?”. We admit that our answer is rather intuitive, but we can be reassured by the fact that René Guénon, Julius Evola, or Frithjof Schuon, the key figures in the restoration of traditionalist philosophy, were the ones who had the deepest and clearest understanding of the transcendental, metaphysical unity of Eastern and Western religions and cultures. Their teaching reaches back to such ancient intellectual sources that can provide a sense of communion for awakening Western Christian, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist people. These two things are exactly what are necessary for the success of Eurasianism: a foundation that can ensure supranational and supra-religious perspectives as well as an intellectual centrality. The metaphysical Tradition can ensure these two: universality and quality. At that moment, Eurasianism is no longer a mere geopolitical alternative, a new yet equally crisis-infected (and thus also infectious) globalization process, but a traditionalist repsonse.

We cannot overemphasize the superior quality of in­tellectual Eurasianism. However, it is important to note here that the acquisition of an intellectual superiority ensured by the traditionalist approach would not at all mean that our confrontation with Euroatlantism would remain at a spiritual-intellectual level only, thus giving up our intentions to create a counterbalance or even dominance in the practical areas, such as the political, diplomatic, economic, military, and cultural spheres. We can be satisfied with neither a vulgar Eurasianism (lacking a philosophical centre) nor a theoretical one (lacking practicability). The only adequate form for us is such a Eurasianism that is rooted in the intellectual centre of traditionalism and is elaborated for practical implementation as well. To sum up in one sentence: there must be a traditionalist Eurasianism standing in opposition to an anti-traditionalist Euroatlantism.

The above also means that geopolitical and geographical positions are strategically important, but not at all exclusive, factors in identifying the enemy-ally coordinates. A group that has a traditionalist intellectual base (thus being intellectually Eurasian) is our ally even if it is located in a Euro-Atlantic zone, while a geographically Eurasian but anti-traditionalist force (thus being intellectually Euro-Atlantic) would be an enemy, even if it is a great power.

4. Homogeneousness and Heterogeneousness

If it is truly built upon the intellectual centre of metaphysical Tradition, intellectual Eurasianism has such a common base that it is relevant regardless of geographical position, thus giving the necessary homoge­neousness to the entire concept. On the other hand, the tremendous size and the versatility of cultures and ancient traditions of the Eurasian area do not allow for a complete theoretical uniformity. However, this is just a barrier to overcome, an intellectual challenge that we must all meet, but it is not a preventive factor. Each region, nation, and country must find their own form that can organically and harmoniously fit into its own traditions and the traditionalist philosophical approach of intellectual Eurasianism as well. Simply put, we can say that each one must form their own Eurasianism within the large unit.

As we said above, this is an intellectual challenge that requires an able intellectual elite in each region and coun­try who understand and take this challenge and are in a constructive relationship with the other, similar elites.

These elites together could provide the international intellectual force that is destined to elaborate the Eurasian framework itself. The sentences above throw a light on the greatest hiatus (and greatest challenge) lying in the establishment of intellectual Eurasianism. This challenge is to develop and empower traditionalist intellectual elites operating in different geographical areas, as well as to establish and improve their supranational relations. Geographically and nationally speaking, intellectual Eurasianism is heterogeneous, while it is homogeneous in the continental and essential sense.

However, the heterogeneousness of Eurasianism must not be mistaken for the multiculturalism of Euroatlantism. In the former, allies form a supranational and supra-cultural unit while also preserving their own traditions, whereas the latter aims to create a sub-cultural and sub-national unit, forgetting and rejecting traditions. This also means that intellectual Eurasianism is against and rejects all mass migrations, learning from the West’s current disaster caused by such events. We believe that geographical position and environment is closely related to the existence and unique features of the particular religious, social, and cultural tradition, and any sudden, inorganic, and violent social movement ignoring such factors will inevitably result in a state of dysfunction and conflicts. Intellectual Eurasianism promotes self-realization and the achievement of intellectual missions for all nations and cultures in their own place.

5. Closing Thoughts

The aim of this short essay is to outline the basis and lay the foundations for an ambitious and intellectual Eurasianism by raising fundamental issues. We based our argumentation on the obvious fact that the world is in crisis, and that this crisis is caused by liberal globalization, which we identified as Euroatlantism. We believe that the counter-effect needs to be vertical and traditionalist, not horizontal and vulgar. We called this counter-effect Eurasianism, some core ideas of which were explained here. We hope that this essay will have a fecundating impact, thus truly contributing to the further elaboration of intellectual Eurasianism, both from a universal and a Hungarian aspect.

Gábor Vona is Leader of the Hungarian political party “Jobbik” (For Better Hungary). They recently won 20.54 percent of the vote in the national Hungarian elections.

Originally published in the Journal for Eurasian Affairs.  Lightly edited for Open Revolt.

J. Arther White of the Budapest Times has interviewed Márton Gyöngyösi, deputy leader of Jobbik’s parliamentary faction and vice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.  He is the one who famously declared that the names of Jews need to be put on a list for security reasons.

The interview covers upcoming National elections in Hungary on April 6th, as well as May’s European elections.

Jobbik, along with the Golden Dawn, are being excluded by Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders, just as Golden Dawn have been.

I remain in a state of total confusion about Jobbik, as they continue to push a pro-Muslim agenda, and are apparently opposed to working with people who do not want Muslims in their country.  At the same time, I am continually encouraged by their anti-Jewish, anti-EU and traditionalist positions.

It’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

Here is the interview.

***

What is your campaign strategy for the European Parliament elections?

As you’re probably aware we have three elections this year: national parliamentary elections, the European Parliament election and then the local elections. Of course our relationship with the European Union is a very important topic, even on the national level, but it’s not our main focus now. After the national elections, we’re going to jump into a month and a half of campaigning for the European Parliament elections. In 2009, when we ran for the first time, we reached a very good result of 15% and we sent three MEPs. We hope to reach at least that percentage. Our European Parliament program is already well on the way. Unfortunately, we are somehow ostracised from the mainstream media and our messages do not come through. So we use very direct campaigning, with much more emphasis on the internet and on public forums.

What kinds of issues are you hoping to raise concerning the EU in both the national elections and the European Parliament elections?

Just like in a lot of other countries there’s a big deal of euroscepticism sweeping through Hungary. In these times of economic and financial crisis much of the blame has been put on the EU and I think rightly so, given the way this crisis has been managed and the way the EU is transforming itself. I think there is a lot of resistance to the continuous centralisation that the EU has been undergoing since the Lisbon Treaty, since the Maastricht Treaty if you like. I think most of the Hungarian people reject this and I think these elections are going to be very much about the future of the EU. I’m expecting a very eurosceptic result from this country – and overall as well. This is not just Jobbik. I think euroscepticism is beyond Jobbik and Jobbik’s supporters. Already Mr. Orbán is hinting at a very eurosceptic approach. He’s of course pro-EU and has done a lot for Hungary’s accession, but at the moment, rhetorically, he’s critical of the EU. This is of course political tactics. I think the hardcore Fidesz supporters are fed up with the EU and I think Jobbik can expect votes from them. I think that was one of the reasons Fidesz did not want to put the national elections and the European Parliament elections on the same date, although it would have been logical. There would have been a very large turnout for the European Parliament elections, and a lot of people would have cast a protest vote on the side of Jobbik. But they didn’t want a high rejection of the EU. That would have been a dreadful message toward Brussels. A positive message from my point of view.

What do you think are the main dangers of increasing EU integration?

I only see dangers. In 1991 we got candidacy. If we want to cast judgment on the EU we have to look at not only our membership, but the whole accession process. A nation negotiating EU membership with Brussels is given guidelines and forced to move within certain boundaries. This has had a very negative impact on Hungary’s transition process. We were told to liberalise and privatise our economy, which meant that in the scope of about ten years Hungary sold out its entire national wealth. We were told that private capital, private investment and foreign entrepreneurship are going to bring us to paradise in no time. But what you can see is that Western European countries needed Hungary more than Hungary needed the EU. They gained a market of ten million in this country, and hundreds of millions if you look at the whole region. Economically, it’s a very substantial step for the EU. Geo-strategically as well. They pushed the boundaries of Euro-Atlanticism towards the east by hundreds of kilometres. This is what you also see in the Ukraine. But it’s not enough to blame the EU and the nasty capitalists in the West. We had a political elite in this country – Mr. Orbán, socialist politicians like Gyula Horn – who were handpicked for this kind of transitional politics.  None of them ever questioned European integration or this kind of economic transition. A lot of criticism can be put on them for managing the transition in a way whereby this country has suffered more in 25 years than in two world wars. We have basically lost all of our national wealth and all our national property. We basically have nothing in Hungarian hands at the moment. It is all in the hands of foreign entrepreneurs and investors who bought up factories and in some cases destroyed them.

What are some examples of this?

Our food-processing industry was completely destroyed. We used to be capable of self-sufficiency in agricultural production. Just to give you one example, we used to have 12 sugar factories. We were completely self-sufficient and we exported 75% of our sugar production. Today we import almost all sugar because production has ceased to exist. There’s only one sugar factory in Hungary and it’s under Austrian ownership. The EU says you cannot produce because there are quotas and the quota is about half the self-sufficiency level… What happened to the factories? They were bought up by foreign companies – French and German companies – and destroyed. Now we buy sugar from the companies that bought them. So they bought a market.

Do you think that Hungary should seek to renegotiate the EU treaties?

Exactly. That’s our proposal. We want a referendum on our EU membership and we want to renegotiate, starting with our membership treaty.

If you were to successfully renegotiate would there still be a need for the referendum?

It depends on the outcome. But almost certainly yes. I don’t think it’s possible to renegotiate the treaties to such an extent that we would find it good and beneficial for the Hungarian nation. It would need a complete reshuffle of the agreement. Given the shape of the EU and Hungary at the moment, I don’t think it’s feasible or possible.

So you think in all practical terms a withdrawal would be necessary?

Yes, through a referendum. We would be supporting a withdrawal. That’s the same position we had in 2004. We were campaigning for a Europe of Nations model where national sovereignty is much stronger and where centralisation is less. In 2004 we also had a very critical approach and campaigned on the No side. What we have seen since has made us even stronger in our belief.

But haven’t you seen positive effects of EU membership – haven’t there been foreign investments or trade relations that have benefited the Hungarian economy?

It’s the balance we need to look at. We have over 1000 years of relations with Europe. That’s not a matter of EU membership. You don’t need to be part of the EU to have good bilateral relationships. The EU could have improved relationships. Once upon a time the EU may have been an organisation that was based on mutual trust and mutual benefits, back in the 1960s or 1970s. But today it is not like that. Today it works more like an empire that has a central interest; the interest of the bigger and older nation-states in the EU. They are looking after their own industrial interests and they subordinate every other nation’s interests to that. I think that’s what causes much of the frustration within the EU. And, of course, mistakes have been made. I think the euro was a complete disaster and a complete mistake. That’s an economic analysis, not a political judgment. I think it was completely premature to have one single currency in such a divergent economic environment. They made a mistake and the solution they looked for was even more disastrous. They should have gone in a completely different direction. Now they’re trying to impose even more of this centralised decision making.

You mean the banking union measures?

Exactly. Fiscal discipline and supervision from Brussels. If a sovereign nation-state wants to draw up its budget that’s a question of sovereignty. Having learned from the mistakes of Greece, Brussels wants rights to override national budgetary policy. That’s complete nonsense. Where is that going to lead us? Some bureaucrats in Brussels who have no clue of the real economic situation in Hungary and what the Hungarian people need or desire are going to override the budget of a government? Monetary policy is centralised. Now fiscal policy is going to be centralised within Brussels as well. National sovereignty has suffered a lot in the past couple of years. It’s no wonder that in every country there is some kind opposition to this direction.

The Dutch politician Geert Wilders and France’s Marine Le Pen have called for a pan-European alliance of eurosceptic parties. According to media reports, they have stated that Jobbik will be excluded for being too extremist. How do you react to this?

In Western Europe, parties of this type have a program that we cannot identify ourselves with completely. Their opinion about the EU coincides with ours. I think they have the same idea about Brussels as we do. But there is one big difference between them and us. A common ground between Wilders, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, FPÖ in Austria and Le Pen in France – if I want to generalise, the Western European radical movements – is immigration. They are anti-immigration, and since most immigrants are from Muslim countries they have a very strong Islamophobia and very strong anti-Islamic rhetoric. In Jobbik, on the other hand, Gábor Vona has always been putting forward peaceful dialogue between religions. He has been calling Islam a traditionalist civilisation and pointing out that all traditionalists in the world – whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu – should join forces and stand up against liberalism, which is basically an enemy of traditionalism. Through propagating multiculturalism and complete nihilism and valuelessness it is basically undermining traditionalism. In this sense Jobbik is a traditionalist party. Our main enemy is not people who have a different culture or a different religion. The common enemy of traditionalists, regardless of where they come from, is liberalism, which wants to sweep away every type of tradition and culture. It is propagating a very colourful, multiethnic, multicultural environment. I think the division line is between traditionalists and liberals, not nations or cultures. This is one of our greatest arguments with Le Pen and Wilders.

You don’t see them as being in the same traditionalist camp as you are?

No. I think they are complete liberals. Absolutely liberal. They don’t see the point. What they are afraid of is that the liberal values of Europe and of Western civilisation since the Enlightenment are endangered by mass immigration. So they are basically protecting the liberal values of Europe. In this respect we cannot find the same platform with these parties because we see the problem completely differently. I think they are part of the problem. They are political mavericks. As a political idea, it is great to find an enemy, shoot at it and get supporters behind your back, but I think they are getting the point wrong. It’s a very bad sign that Europe’s instincts are not working any more.

So you think they have refused to work with you and called you extremist because of your criticism of liberal values?

That’s the root of the problem. But we can take it further. For this anti-Islamic campaign they have obtained Zionist support from Israel. Every single one of them. Since Islam and Israel, or Zionism, are enemies, they have basically formed one camp. You can see that Strache of FPÖ has made a number of pro-Israeli statements and received Zionist support. Vlaams Belang is even financed by certain Zionist communities. Wilders as well. They see immigration and Islam as the greatest danger, so they got one of the greatest enemies of Islam – Zionism – on their side. It’s a completely logical approach. In Hungary we have a completely different problem. If you look at our statements and what we represent, we have been criticising Israeli politics. We have criticised Zionism as a global phenomenon and the way it functions in the world today.

Do you see a risk of this position morphing into discrimination if you’re singling out Jews as being potential agents of Israel? You did make a statement some years ago that there should be an investigation into government members that havedual Israeli-Hungarian citizenship.

Dual citizenship is a risk. It’s a national security risk. I want to be sure that a Hungarian parliamentarian, member of government or civil servant is 100% loyal and 100% committed to my nation when they are making laws or executing them. Everyone in the world thinks the same. In Israel double citizens are excluded from the Knesset. If Israel does that, then why are they hurt if I demand the same thing for Hungary? In America, it has to be completely transparent. Every member of Congress has to put forward what race, ethnicity and religion they belong to and what citizenship they have. All I want is the same type of transparency in Hungary.

Would you make the same demand of other nationalities?

Of course. If someone has Zimbab­wean-Hungarian double citizenship that’s also a curiosity.

Would you view them as a potential national security risk?

It could be. If someone has citizenship it means they swore an oath to a particular country. If you swore an oath to two countries then what is the guarantee that you can exclude your loyalty or your identity when you are making the laws or executing the laws of the other nation? There is a conflict of interest. With Hungarian-Israeli double citizenship I think this risk is even higher than with Zimbabwean-Hungarian double citizenship, because we have heard of malicious intentions from Mr. Shimon Perez when he spoke about the colonisation of Hungary by financial and economic means.

I’d like to move back to the alliance question. Are there any other parties that have a similar mentality to you and with whom you might be able to form an alliance in the European Parliament?

The question of alliance seeking comes after the election. Of course you can make alliances if you have a very close program. It appears that Wilders, Le Pen and Strache have this common program. We don’t have it with them. But we did achieve something about two years ago. Our MEP Béla Kovács formed a European-based party called the Alliance of European National Movements. Since the Lisbon Treaty it is possible for individual MEPs to form an international party – based on individual membership, rather than between parties. This is quite an achievement. It shows that we have some kind of negotiating power. We are the strongest party in the radical movement, so we do get a lot of attention in this camp.

But do you see any specific opportunities for cooperation in the next Parliament?

Even a fraction is very difficult to have because you need so many countries and so many members. But I think it’s a non-issue. It’s such a useless organisation, to be completely honest with you. I don’t think it has such a huge significance whether you are sitting in a fraction or you’re a non-attached member. We’re not going to give up part of our program or compromise on our principles just to gain more money or to speak twice on one of these silly issues that the European Parliament is discussing, like the curve of the cucumber. But, to answer your question, it is going to be a very interesting election, especially because of the rising euroscepticism within the EU. Most of the analysts expect a big rise in the influence of eurosceptic parties within the Parliament. I think this is going to widen the opportunities for some kind of alliance. In Poland there is a new party called Ruch Narodowy (National Movement). We have a very close cooperation with them. We sign common press releases and they come to our national days and rallies. We are also looking at cooperation in Croatia, where various parties are forming a bloc for the European Parliament elections. We have contacts and relationships with them. We are continuously building these alliances. It is this part of Europe – Central Eastern Europe – where such alliance building is sensible and appropriate. With French radical parties or British radical parties we have a very different outlook and very different problems.

Two names floating around the media as potential partners are the British National Party (BNP) and the Golden Dawn in Greece.

According to the media, we are financed by Al-Qaeda or by Russia and Iran. There is a lot of nonsense in the media. With Golden Dawn we have never had any contact. When Gábor Vona went to London they said he was going there to meet Golden Dawn. This is completely crazy. In election time Gábor Vona wants to meet the electorate. There are tens of thousands of Hungarians living in London. He went to meet them and talk about our program. Why would he travel to London to meet Golden Dawn? He would travel to Athens. That’s the media for you. We don’t have such cooperation. On the other hand, the BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, did join the Alliance of European National Movements with our MEPs. He’s not a member any more but he was a part of this party.

Do you see a good possibility of further cooperation with the BNP?

Our judgment on the EU is converging. But once again I think their anti-Islamic position is something very difficult to match with our outlook on the world. We are looking for an alliance of traditionalism across the world against liberalism. I think Europe is suffering from liberalism. That’s what we should get rid of first and foremost, then find our own roots, our own values and our own traditions and build on that. Instead of hate and finding a common enemy. That’s not going to lead anywhere. We are not going to get rid of the main cause of our crisis: liberalism, which has basically caused valuelessness and a complete detachment from our cultural and religious traditions.

Theresa May is under growing pressure to ban the leader of an extreme Hungarian nationalist party from entering Britain to host a rally in London this weekend.

Gabor Vona, who used his new year message earlier this month to call for the chemical castration of criminals, is due to address “sympathisers” of his far-right party, Jobbik, on Sunday to drum up support among expat Hungarians ahead of national and European elections in the coming weeks.

Jobbik officials denied that Mr Vona, whose party is accused of seeking to legitimise virulent anti-semitic and anti-Roma views in Hungary, will use his visit to meet leaders of the British National Party and the Greek Golden Dawn movement, whose members have expressed admiration for Hitler.

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, said last month that the three parties had a “common core set of values” and he was seeking a formal alliance with Golden Dawn and Jobbik, which is Hungary’s third largest party, for the European Parliament poll in May.

The expected arrival in London of the leader of Jobbik, which has 43 seats in the Hungarian parliament and three in the European Parliament, is the source of deep upset among Jewish groups, politicians and members of Britain’s 100,000-strong Hungarian population.

Andrew Dinsmore, a former Labour MP and now a member of the London Assembly, has written to Mrs May asking for Mr Vona to be banned from entering Britain and for Scotland Yard to intervene to prevent the Jobbik gathering in central London, due to be held a day before the annual Holocaust Memorial Day.

He said: “The Home Secretary must take a stand to stop Jobbik’s message of hate being broadcast on the streets of London. Jobbik are the most powerful outwardly fascist political party in Europe. Their level of support in the Hungarian elections shows how their message of hate has spread.”

A Facebook page for the event showed that 57 people have so far declared their intention to attend, including a woman describing herself as a children’s music teacher in east London. Another supporter said he would be travelling from Bristol by coach.

In a letter to Mrs May, Jewish leaders backed the calls for a ban, saying that the arrival of Mr Vona and a fellow Jobbik MP, Sandor Porze, would be “an affront to the values we hold dear and is disturbing to the British Jewish community, as well as other minorities”.

The statement on behalf of four leading Jewish groups, including the Board of Deputies, implored Mrs May to make “every effort to prevent these Jobbik representatives from propagating their despicable views and hatred in the UK”.

Hope not Hate, the anti-fascist group, condemned the planned visit, saying it was wrong for Mr Vona to be allowed to voice his “politics of hatred” in Britain.

The Home Office last night declined to comment on the calls for a ban. The Independent understands that a bar on Mr Vona is nonetheless being actively considered under provisions which give the Home Secretary the power to exclude an individual if his or her presence is not “conducive to the public good”.

Scotland Yard said it was aware of the Jobbik rally and “assessing” the information.

Formed a decade ago, Jobbik has rapidly grown by espousing a mixture of anti-globalisation economics, hardline law-and-order policies including the introduction of a “three strikes” rule and a barely-concealed agenda against “Israelis” and Roma people.

Read More

Two days ago, I published a piece condemning the statements of Jobbik’s leader, Gabor Vona, regarding Islam and Turkey.

At time of writing, the post has over a hundred comments on it.  Most people seem to agree with me that the statements are disgusting and offensive, but several people took offense to my having taken offense.  As such, I believe it is worthwhile to respond to this criticism here, rather than spend hours in the comments section responding to individuals.

Firstly, it is important to make it clear that I am not condemning Jobbik as a whole, I am not even necessarily condemning Vona, I am simply presenting a response to statements which I find unacceptable.

I am in no way dismissing the achievements of Jobbik by addressing these statements.

The Statements

While on a speaking tour in Turkey, Vona is quoted as having said:

A.) “Islam is the last hope for humanity in the darkness of globalism and liberalism,” and

B.) “We’re not coming to Turkey to build diplomatic and economic relations, but to meet our Turkish brothers and sisters.”

These comments are deeply troubling at best, at worst, they are treasonous.

The first statement is so bizarre, I can’t even comprehend it.  Why would Islam – a foreign religion of our millenia-old enemies – be the “last hope for humanity,” rather than our own Christian faith?  Surely, Christianity served as a barrier against liberalism in the past, why should it not do so now?  In identifying Islam as humanity’s last hope, Vona is not simply praising the cult of a race which has repeatedly invaded and subjugated our people, but he is implicitly stating that Christianity is incapable of providing spiritual direction for our people.

Vona’s defenders have claimed that he is not encouraging Hungarians to convert to Islam, noting that he himself is not a Muslim.  However, if Islam is truly “humanity’s last hope,” why would we not convert? If we have no more hopes, we need to go with the last one, right?

The second statement plainly implies that Hungarians are Turks.  It is connected to Vona’s belief in Turanism, a mythological concept that there is an ancient ‘Turanaid’ race, of which both Turks and Hungarians belong.  Believers in this religious concept generally endorse some sort of “pan-Turian empire.”  In my perception, it is clear that Hungarians are White European people, and I would wager that this is how the overwhelming majority of Hungarians identify.

The Wikipedia article on Turanism offers us the following on the topic:

Turanism, or Pan-Turanism, is a political movement for the union of all Turanian peoples. It implies not merely the unity of all Turkic peoples (as in Pan-Turkism), but also the unification of a wider Turanid race, also known as the controversial Uralo-Altaic race, believed to include all peoples speaking “Turanian languages”. Like the term Aryan, Turanian is used chiefly as a linguistic term, equivalent to Ural-Altaic linguistic group. The idea of the necessity of “Turanian brotherhood/collaboration” was borrowed from the “Slavic brotherhood/collaboration” idea of Panslavism.[2]

Turkish proponents of scientific racism claimed that this racial group embraced

the Ottoman Turks of Istanbul and Anatolia, the Turcomans of Central Asia and Persia, the Tartars of South Russia and Transcaucasia, the Magyars of Hungary, the Finns of Finland and the Baltic provinces, the aboriginal tribes of Siberia and even the distant Mongols and Manchus”.

[…]

Hungarian Turanism (Hungarian: Turanizmus) is a Hungarian nationalist ideology which stresses the alleged origins of the Hungarian people in the steppes of Central Asia (“Turan”) and the affinity of the Hungarians with Asian peoples such as the Turkic people. It gained wide currency on the Hungarian political right in the years between the two world wars. In the half-century before World War I, some Hungarians sought to encourage Pan-Turanianism as a means of uniting Turks and Hungarians against the Slavs and Pan-Slavism.

It appears that Vona’s statements relate to a larger plan to attempt to introduce a new identity for the people, where they are not Europeans, but instead part of some vague pseudo-historical group that is actually Turkish.

If we look at the two statements together, we easy can picture a worst case scenario, where Vona is planning to push Hungary into some weird new Turkish empire, where it would obviously make sense for Hungarians to embrace their “last hope” and convert to Islam.

However, that is merely worse case, and if it is Vona’s plan, it merely means he is insane, as no such thing is ever going to happen.  The Turks are a backward, savage race that was only capable of maintaining an empire in the medieval period.  A glance at the present state of Turkey clearly shows that they no more capable of functioning efficiently in the modern world than their Arab neighbors (who they are now heavily mixed with, genetically), and the idea of them reestablishing their empire today is only slightly less ridiculous than supposing sub-Saharan Africans are going to establish a modern empire.

Regardless of weird potential undertones, the statements are offensive enough in themselves if taken at face value to warrant heavy reproach.

The Commenting Critics

The most base criticism lodged in the comments of my previous article was that I have no right to comment on the affairs of Hungary, as I am not Hungarian.  This can of course be dismissed outright, as I have a right to comment on anything I wish to comment on, and the behavior of individual figures within European nationalism effects the larger whole, and thus I have a duty to use my influence to effect perceptions of individuals moving in a direction which I view to be detrimental to the cause of European nationalism.  Beyond this, Jobbik, as a European nationalist organization that has achieved a good degree of success, is being looked to as an inspiration by aspiring nationalist parties in Europe, and as such they should be subject to extra scrutiny.

I would also assert that as European nationalists, Jobbik has a duty to work alongside other nationalist organizations. Regardless of whether or not Hungary presently is dealing with a crisis of Islamic immigration (it seems they are not), this is the core issue that most European nations are dealing with.  By endorsing Islam, Vona is demonstrating a lack of concern for the plight of the rest of Europe.  It is difficult to imagine how these statements could have been anything other than a purposeful attempt to alienate other European nationalist organizations.

Ultimately though, the point that as I am not a Hungarian, I have no right to dictate the direction of the Hungarian nation, is one I am able to recognize.  If indeed the Hungarian people decide that they want to be Turks instead of Europeans, and embrace Islam as their last hope, then I have no right to tell them otherwise.  I would wager, however, that most Hungarians would be just as disgusted by the notion as the people of any other European nation.

Another critic framed my distaste for these statements as a declaration that I do not believe Europe should have any alliances with the Muslim world, ever, because I believe Muslims are always the enemy.  This is a misrepresentation both of what Vona has said and what I have said in response.

Claiming Islam is humanity’s last hope and saying that Hungarians are Turks is not the language of strategic geopolitical alliance – I don’t exactly know what type of language it is, but it is not that.

For my part, I have not said, nor do I believe, that Europe should never have any ties with Muslim nations.  Looking at the Muslim world now, however, there are very few political bodies which I consider worthy of endorsement (the most honorable among them are Hezbollah, Assad and Iran).

On top of this, the benefits of such alliances, at this present juncture, are unclear to me, and it is especially unclear why one would make it a focal point.  These countries have very little going for them.  They are at least a century behind us in development, and are not likely to catch up any time soon.  They do not have modern militaries, economies or even basic infrastructure.  On the whole, they are poverty stricken and hellish.  All that they have to offer are natural resources, and these can be obtained through other channels.

So though I don’t necessarily advocate ruling it out completely, alliances with Muslim nations would be very difficult to obtain, and serve almost no purpose.  European nationalist organizations should be looking to Russia, or even China, to form alliances, not the backward mother nations of the invading hordes, who represent an ancient blood enemy.

Finally, I will address the commenter Reichenberg, who brought up a couple of points:

Your time spent with Greek comrades may have influenced you more, then you ‘d like to admit, Bro.

Get yourself together. You are being particular here. “Turks are demons”, so everyone opposing them are good. Black and white thinking. Exactly the kind we don’t need.

Before you answer, please consider: Was this article in any way helpful to the Cause of our Aryan Revolution?

Black and white thinking is exactly the kind of thinking we do need, in my perception.

“Muslims are invading us and raping women on the streets of every European capital… but, Islam is the last hope of humanity and we should be friends with the Turks who spent hundreds of years trying to conquer us and still have a deep-rooted hatred of Christian Europe” is not the sort of message you want to present.  Clearly, complexity exists, but communicating it to millions of people is impossible.  Everything comes down to maintaining a narrative which moves the masses, and by seeking an alliance with Turkey, and doing so using such a strange premise and non-political language, Vona is distorting history and alienating all of Europe.

To the second point: I am not the one who said Islam is humanity’s last hope.  That was Gabor.  This statement is clearly detrimental to Aryan revolution, as it brings into question absolutely everything we are fighting for, and obfuscates the enemy.  I would not have written the article if these statements had not been made.

So yes, the article is absolutely helpful to the cause, because it calls out a type of thought that cannot be tolerated by the larger whole of European nationalism.  Again, Hungarians are a sovereign people, and if they want to embrace Islam and say that they are Turks, that is their right.  For the rest of Europe, however, there is no room for sympathy for the blood enemies of our people.

You mention my association with Greeks, but please, ask Bulgarians, Serbians, Slovaks, Russians, French or Germans what they think of Turks.  Everyone knows that these people are a very serious problem, and a nationalist leader making a point to reach out to them in such a flagrant way was clearly going to be viewed as unacceptable. If anything, the offense which would obviously be taken by the rest of European nationalists was enough reason not to say these things.

Any approval of Islam, outside of simply stating that Muslims in their own lands have a right to determine their own way of life, is detrimental to the cause of European nationalism.  Claiming that Islam is the last hope for humanity absolutely borders on treason.

I am not dismissing Jobbik as a lost cause, I am simply stating what should be obvious: these comments are very disturbing, and the thinking behind them needs to be understood.

UPDATE:

In the comments section, the commenter ‘The Truth Will Out’ proposed a conspiracy theory that the quotes from Gabor Vona which served as the basis for this article had been fabricated by Jews for the purpose of defaming Jobbik, and that I was engaging in shoddy journalism and spreading Jewish lies.

I had not understood that the veracity of the quotations was being questioned, as most who have been following Jobbik understand that Vona has repeatedly made statements endorsing Islam and claiming that Hungarians are Turks, but because of the confusion, I have gone ahead and pulled the quotes from Jobbik’s own official website.

Here is the second quote, regarding Hungarians being the blood brothers of the Turks, translated exactly as I quoted it above:

‘I did not come here to improve temporal diplomatic and business relations, other people will do so; I came here to meet my brothers and sisters, to offer a brotherly alliance and to bring you the message: Hungarians are awakening! This is our common mission and the universal task of Turanism: to build a bridge between East and West, Muslim and Christian and struggle together for a better world. We must show that Christians and Muslims are not enemies but brothers. Perhaps none else than us Hungarians and Turks are able to do that; but we are, because we are connected by our common blood.’

http://www.jobbik.com/g%C3%A1bor_vona_future_eurasia_will_be_based_traditions

I can’t find the exact version of the “Islam is humanity’s last hope” quote, but this is the same basic statement, phrased slightly differently, in an article from 2010:

‘If Islam fails the lights will completely go out. There will be no foeman against the darkness of globalism. Then the history will really come to an end and there will be no happy end….’

http://www.jobbik.com/vona_g%C3%A1bor_about_islam