>To understand what the future holds for Hungary and for other countries facing similar challenges requires an appreciation of both local history and global tendencies.
>For centuries Hungary has been subject to monarchic, autocratic, despotic and totalitarian governments that were occasionally disrupted by revolutions, only to find relative stability in 1989. The fall of communism ushered in an era of liberty throughout Europe. Yet this liberty came in the shape of what has become known as a “system change” — an event extraneous to the will of people, akin to a gift from the heavens.
>Apart from a handful of dissident intellectuals, no one worked, fought or did anything to earn this liberty. Many people did not value it, or even fully take note of the change. The new political elite had no experience, nor did they understand the people they supposedly represented. Their own conception of politics determined how the government was run. They failed in enabling people to practice their own powers. The people, conditioned by centuries of turmoil, were thus ripe for the plucking by an unscrupulous politician who understood and exploited their traditional need for an authoritative center, their habit to allow leaders to think for them.
>But for right-wing populism to thrive, Hungary’s historical penchant for servility required another condition, one that is now a global phenomenon: the transformation of class to a mass society. In a class society, by and large, a despot cannot permanently snuff out various groups’ interests without some kind of violent suppression or confrontation. But in a mass society, where traditional class interests have dissipated, a tyrant-in-the-making such as Mr. Orban does not need to seize power — his rule can be cemented by the nominally democratic institution of the popular vote.
TL:DR: Hungarians are servile plebs who had independence handed to them on a silver platter. This is why they give it away freely to the tyrannical despot Viktor Orban.
It's correct. Those who never fought for their liberty do not deserve it and will vote it away sooner or later. This is also why women shouldn't vote and why we need universal male service.
Landon Rodriguez
Autocracy is the norm throughout human history, every democracy, past, present, and future has or will commit suicide.
Ethan Stewart
>t. angry nigger
Christian Gray
>Apart from a handful of dissident intellectuals, no one worked, fought or did anything to earn this liberty. Many people did not value it, or even fully take note of the change. The new political elite had no experience, nor did they understand the people they supposedly represented. Holy fucking shit the arrogance of these kikes They deserve worse than it is physically possible for them to get.
>(((liberty))) >universal male service This is the exact opposite of liberty, faggot. Take off your memeflag, I expect much better from Jow Forums's lolbergs, who are at least consistent.
Landon Myers
Orbán > any other available candidate
Asher Powell
Reee why don't you want your country to get blacked goyim this is fascism
Landon Gonzalez
>This is the exact opposite of liberty, faggot. Elaborate, because it really depends on how you define liberty. By Rousseauvian means there are three liberties: absolute liberty (a fucking meme), natural liberty (which you hand in for obvious reasons) and civic liberty. Conscription is entirely in line with the last one, much like not being able to jaywalk. Or are you going to shout how "the man" doesn't let you walk where you please?
>you live in a timeline where journalists are allowed to disparage entire groups of people if they are white and disagree with them
Jaxson Baker
>If you are going to talk about civic liberty, then this is just an abstract buzzword meaning nothing. Then you believe natural liberty is the only kind of liberty that is 'truly' liberty? Then you are against the very existence of states, right?
>I'm on board with having conscription in an ethnostate that bans degeneracy So you're not willing to serve in order to protect liberty but in order to protect a totalitarian regime. Luckily for you, totalitarian regimes don't need your consent to rule you. You don't need to be "on board" with anything.
Dominic Long
Probably because Orban is a corrupt faggot
Still, he's far better than what most of europe has and he hasn't cucked out on the migrant problem, which is why people support him
Hunter Russell
>those Hungarians are just sycophants using a "nominally democratic" vote to elect a guy standing up for their country rather than acquiescing to the massive bureaucracy of the EU that seeks to completely eclipse their national will and assimilate them like the fucking borg
Hmmm. Those damn servile Huns should accept these scary buzzwords for daring to have a national leader. Bring them liberty or bring them death, mama merkel.
So basically just more kvetching from gloabalist kikes that a country won't fall in line with their agenda.
Joseph Morgan
haha yeah its not like they tried fighting the communists in 1956 or anything lmao
Eli Collins
>Then you believe natural liberty is the only kind of liberty that is 'truly' liberty? No. I think liberty as an ideal above all else is silly and not worth fighting for--it's the value of not having values. >So you're not willing to serve in order to protect liberty but in order to protect a totalitarian regime. These are very far apart from each other. Banning specific forms of degeneracy is hardly "totalitarian" (and a lolberg should also understand the difference between positive and negative restrictions or rights--prevented from doing something vs. forced to do it). Only recently have many degenerate acts such as adultery been legalized in the West, including the US, and while these have been pushed through you have simultaneous changes in the direction of outright redistribution of wealth with personal income taxes and personal mandates.
If you're going to argue that "freedom" to distribute tranny nigger porn is more important than blood, or more important than having nearly half your income taken away to feed niggers, for that matter, then I don't want any part of it, and I certainly won't die for it.
I'd sooner die trying to tear that ridiculous system down.
Leo Ortiz
>they must be dumb retarded cowards to fall for right wing populism fuck the left and their bullshit. hungary is based as hell
Jacob Nguyen
>I think liberty as an ideal above all else is silly and not worth fighting for Show me what you value more than liberty and I will show you the tool of your oppression. >it's the value of not having values Nah, that's tolerance. Liberty is the value of making your own path in life.
>Banning specific forms of degeneracy is hardly "totalitarian" Who gets to define what totalitarianism is? Isn't it convenient that when Hitler ordered the banning of "degenerate art", it also included everything that criticized him and his regime? It is an ill defined restriction of freedom expression with no direct justification (such as limiting the flow of information on state secret for ovious reasons) that only plays into the hands of would-be tyrants.
>Only recently have many degenerate acts such as adultery been legalized in the West Yes, so? It's not the affair of the state. On the flip side, the state also has no right to say how much you "owe" her when you rightfully choose to dump her skank ass. This should be governed by the sphere of morality, which the government has no say over. Before you strawman me I'm not approving of adultery, I'm just saying what has been common knowledge since literally the middle ages: not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Sometimes it's just not the fucking affair of the government.
>If you're going to argue that "freedom" to distribute tranny nigger porn is more important than blood Go back to my first comment in this post. If you value blood over liberty, blood will be used to oppress you.
>or more important than having nearly half your income taken away to feed niggers Again, if you value "everyone getting their fair share" over liberty, you get the Soviet Union at worst and Venezuela at best.
>I'd sooner die trying to tear that ridiculous system down. In that case I'd happily operate the guillotine that liberates the republic from you.
Kayden Foster
Is the statement wrong?
Nathan Davis
>his rule can be cemented by the nominally democratic institution of the popular vote. Yep. They want to abolish representatives in favour of bureaucrat-court system
Lincoln Moore
It's a shitposting thread started by a gypsy and it's 0:29 here. No one really cares. Orbán is bad, but then so is everyone else.
Dylan Jones
You can usually bait the most autistic Hungarian into an argument on Orban by shitting on Jobbik. Let’s try shall we?
>still thinking we have the luxury of discussing "liberty" in our current state Kek. I don't care how authoritarian Orban or Silvani or whoever turns out to be as long they aren't actively trying to kill our civilization. We can have this debate again when the West isn't on the cusp of extinction
Jaxson Scott
>tl,dr Jew got outjewed and whines
Ian Turner
It's true, as triggering as it may be. There was no tea thrown in the harbor, no Bastille that was stormed. The Soviet Union just collapsed in its own misery and the Americans were rubbing their hands, eagerly awaiting to expand their sphere of influence while spreading their values. The values THEY had fought and bled for.
Liberty must be discussed PRECISELY when it is under fire. It is not a matter of luxury, it's a matter of defending core values. Liberty that's given away is not as easily taken back. Do you know what it takes to earn back your liberty? Unless you're in the lucky situation where a stronger power forces it on you by chasing out the old oligarchy, it takes a revolution. Revolutions are nasty, brutal and they kill good people. You do not want a revolution, therefore you do not want to give away the liberty your ancestors endured a revolution for.
Leo Howard
It's pretty hard to not to shit on jobbik these day, with them getting in bed with literal commies and jews and all. They lost almost all their public support, it's only a matter of time for them to disband.
Jayden Brown
Liberty is a buzzword for those brainlets who would rather have half the population hooked on drugs and die eventually than ban drugs.
Parker Smith
Reminds me, I need to eat!
Henry Rivera
>Liberty is the value of making your own path in life. Which you said yourself is subject to obvious restrictions, and being sent off to die against your will is a glaring contradiction of this. You want to argue that it's a necessary sacrifice to maintain liberty? So is a stable society. >Who gets to define what totalitarianism is? Pure semantics, but I'll humor you--it's defined as the complete control by a state of all aspects of society, that is to say, the economy, morality, and personal actions are all subject to state control. Even the Soviet Union wasn't wholly totalitarian, and when you call obscenity laws of all things totalitarian, it's laughably ideological. According to you, the constitution is "totalitarian" because rights can be suspended in wartime.
> It's not the affair of the state. The founders would disagree. Again, if you want to have your DUDE WEED paradise, go ahead, but fuck off if you want to make me die for it.
>If you value blood over liberty, blood will be used to oppress you. ""Oppression""" in this sense then means nothing. So what?
> if you value "everyone getting their fair share" over liberty I don't, but I find it rather funny when you accuse me of being a commie when I complain about my income being taken away and given to shitskins.
>I'd happily operate the guillotine that liberates the republic from you. So you'd execute a man who wants to have the choice to live or die? And you call me the totalitarian? Blow it out your ass.
Jordan Cox
>But in a mass society, where traditional class interests have dissipated, a tyrant-in-the-making such as Mr. Orban does not need to seize power — his rule can be cemented by the nominally democratic institution of the popular vote. >The goys voted for someone we don't want! THIS IS A TYRANT IN THE MAKING! THEY SHOULD BE SERVILE LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN!
The writer of the article is a Jew, by the way.
Grayson Garcia
democracy is a joke, Orban is saving Hungary, kvetch more
Alexander Barnes
Yeah, it'd take a while to get liberties back, but it'll happen eventually. That won't happen if your culture is gone, your people are dead, and your old society is never going to return. Hitler may have jailed political dissidents, rigged elections, and enforced a totalitarian system, for example, but at least there was still a German people, culture, and society at the end of the day.
Daniel Anderson
It is Monday 00:38 here. Do you think working people can afford to stay up this late?
Isaac Gutierrez
> The values THEY had fought and bled for. You mean like a white ethnostate that criminalized everything from adultery to swearing in the presence of a woman for the majority of its existence? Like avoiding foreign entanglements that would result from meddling in international affairs? Or do you mean the "values" of a central bank and acting as the world's policeman in service of a global ZOG? I'll turn your own argument in my favor, your conception of "liberty" is oppressing you.
Noah Baker
liberty is a jewish lie
Jack Peterson
People like him don't understand that permanence of blood is more important than a temporary abstraction of value. They'd always trade the former for the latter.
Andrew Walker
Liberty is the absence of government abuse of power.
>Yeah, it'd take a while to get liberties back "A while"? It could take literal centuries for all you know.
>That won't happen if your culture is gone, your people are dead, and your old society is never going to return So what is the solution? To preserve and reinvigorate that culture, or to sign away its liberties and throw it at the mercy of a totalitarian dictator?
>Hitler may have jailed political dissidents, rigged elections, and enforced a totalitarian system, for example, but at least there was still a German people For FUCKS sake 1. The German people were not in danger. AT ALL. They had the healthiest demographics of all Europeans, having an insane growth compared to for example France. 2. Hitler killed more Germans than anyone before or since. 3. Hitler is the solitary reason why the Germans have become a spineless people afraid of defending themselves.
Ryder Collins
>the absence of government abuse of power. Liberty is the abuse of power by courts and constitutional courts, as in America
Colton Perez
he is absolutely zog brained, pretty much irrevocably so, he is a complete slave
Austin Reyes
Jew spotted. Either that or you smoked too much pot.
Aaron Williams
Yes. You stupid nigger, Hungary struggled for years to gain a modicum of independence, just because they didn't overthrow the USSR in a successful revolution doesn't mean they didn't suffer for decades. These kikes are just mad because they got thrown out of power in Hungary even before the Soviet Union collapsed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
Jayden Green
>Liberty is the absence of government abuse of power. >you still have liberty if the people abusing you aren't calling themselves a government Libertarians are retarded.
Hudson Hill
You know what Orban is doing? He is building his own oligarchy
The Left accepts democratic procedures as long as it has control over means of propaganda and manipulation
What they didn't predict is that people might voluntarily give power to somebody who is an antileftist, not even a right winger
So Orban is using state companies and tax payer money to redistribute it among his befriended oligarchs and activists. They build businesses, give money to voters, buy means of propaganda and manipulation, and then people vote for Orban
It's not very different from what goes on in Germany or France
Connor Cooper
>"A while"? It could take literal centuries for all you know. And I don't care. You realize that the entire future of the Western world is at stake right now, right? A few centuries of recovery is nothing compared to an eternity of nothing. >So what is the solution? To preserve and reinvigorate that culture, or to sign away its liberties and throw it at the mercy of a totalitarian dictator? To do whatever it takes to safeguard your people and culture first. Whether that comes in the form of a dictator or a president, it doesn't matter. >For FUCKS sake I was using Hitler as an example of why I'd rather have him today than a traitor like Merkel. These two statements in particular, however: >2. Hitler killed more Germans than anyone before or since. >3. Hitler is the solitary reason why the Germans have become a spineless people afraid of defending themselves. are retarded. Hitler acted out of national interest for Germany throughout his time in power. The Germans are the way they are today because of what the Soviets and Western Allies forced on them after the war.
Jonathan Peterson
The statement isn't wrong. Hungarians were bought by goulash communism after 1956, their elites weren't even murdered by Germans or Soviets, and until Orban they had a stalinist constitution. Hungarians were basically pacified intellectually because communists reminded them of their nazi collaboration and through that legitimized their power. Hungarians were passive until Orban, both in action and intellect
Levi Miller
>Heller Ágnes >>>/jobbik/ >>>/alfahir/
Nolan Myers
>And I don't care At least you're honest >You realize that the entire future of the Western world is at stake right now, right? Correct. I also realize that would-be tyrants are prone to present themselves as the solution to a problem in order to seize absolute power. It's dictatorship 101. >To do whatever it takes to safeguard your people and culture first. I agree. I just don't see how a totalitarian dictatorship aids in any way. >I was using Hitler as an example of why I'd rather have him today than a traitor like Merkel. I'm not a fan of Merkel either, but at least I can criticize her without going on a nice train ride to Poland. If Merkel had power comparable to that of Hitler, we'd likely not even be in this conversation right now. >Hitler acted out of national interest for Germany throughout his time in power. Was total war in the interest of Germany? Perhaps of the state known as Germany which saw an opportunity to expand its power, but certainly not of the German people. The late stages of WW2 reveal Hitler didn't give a damn about the German people. If he did, he wouldn't have sent literal children to die in front of the Soviet onslaught just so he could get five more seconds to put a bullet through his skull or prepare his sub to Argentina or whatever meme you believe. The German people were a means to an end, a tool with which to sculpt a Germany in his image.
Owen Miller
>Hungarians were passive until facing existential threat ftfy Nations are not just words, they are survival mechanisms.
Jaxson Miller
>Correct. I also realize that would-be tyrants are prone to present themselves as the solution to a problem in order to seize absolute power. It's dictatorship 101. And so far, the "dictators" like Orban are working, while the democratically-elected leaders like Merkel and Macron are leading their nations to oblivion. As long as they keep the culture and people safe, other issues can always be dealt with later >I agree. I just don't see how a totalitarian dictatorship aids in any way. Again, I don't care what form salvation takes. I'm saying that we shouldn't reject leaders who can help us just because they don't fit a definition of liberty >Was total war in the interest of Germany? . Reconnecting East Prussia to Germany was certainly in the peoples' interest. He didn't ask for war against Britain and France, while the USSR was going to be a threat to Germany regardless. > If he did, he wouldn't have sent literal children to die in front of the Soviet onslaught Nah, it still makes sense. He knew that Germany was dead if they lost the war, so they had to give everything they had and hope for a miracle. He was correct, if the current state of the "German" people and German nation are anything to go by.
Dylan Sanders
No. Hungarians didn't even bother to condemn communism on a symbolic, linguistic level, not to mention on political level
Jonathan Perez
Why do you even bother to reply? He is either a jew, a shill or retarded. Not realizing such a simple truth that the best form of governance is benevolent dictatorship clearly speak of his intellect.
Hudson Anderson
>And so far, the "dictators" like Orban are working, while the democratically-elected leaders like Merkel and Macron are leading their nations to oblivion. What about democratically elected leaders in the Far East like in Japan? It's almost as if the Japanese people simply desire to retain their homeland and don't need a dictator to tell them that diversity is bad.
>Reconnecting East Prussia to Germany was certainly in the peoples' interest. Except as early as Mein Kampf Hitler had made it very clear that he didn't want to end with just uniting all the Germans under a Greater Germany. He wanted to expand, to "colonize" more or less. >He didn't ask for war against Britain and France That's what you do when you ignore an ultimatum.
>He knew that Germany was dead if they lost the war, so they had to give everything they had and hope for a miracle Yes, that totally justifies sending children to their death rather than arranging a bloodless peace when defeat is inevitable. There's nothing selfless about that, it's the greatest act of cowardice imaginable.
Tyler Hill
Obviously a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of governance imaginable. The question is how you maintain that dictatorship's benevolence. Considering a dictator is by definition above all political means, there are no means of pressure available to withstand him. A benevolent dictatorship can only work if said dictator is a literal angel.
Asher Ramirez
>For centuries Hungary has been subject to monarchic, autocratic, despotic and totalitarian governments that were occasionally disrupted by revolutions, only to find relative stability in 1989. The fall of communism ushered in an era of liberty throughout Europe. Yet this liberty came in the shape of what has become known as a “system change” — an event extraneous to the will of people, akin to a gift from the heavens.
Yeah, and now that they have it an unelected bureaucracy is telling them to radically alter their demographics or else. KYS EU
Brandon Cooper
>Ágnes Heller (born 12 May 1929) is a Hungarian philosopher.
Colton Reyes
When are you talking about? Fidesz officials routinely condemn communism. As for ‘56, doing so would have only made the result that much more tragic, not to imply the rebels were anticommunist, simply to make the point that doing so under communism would have been a disaster on par with their worst disasters and Hungary’s had some truly remarkable disasters through the years.
>What about democratically elected leaders in the Far East like in Japan? It's almost as if the Japanese people simply desire to retain their homeland and don't need a dictator to tell them that diversity is bad. We keep going in circles on this. My point is that, whether they come democratically or authoritatively, people who want to save the West shouldn't be rejected for their stance on principles that don't have to do with the immediate survival of their people. >Except as early as Mein Kampf Hitler had made it very clear that he didn't want to end with just uniting all the Germans under a Greater Germany. He wanted to expand, to "colonize" more or less. Right, and he saw this as in Germany's best interest. It was in the German peoples' national interest, in other words, which is what I've been saying >That's what you do when you ignore an ultimatum. ...that shouldn't have been issued in the first place, but we can fill a textbook with descriptions of all the retarded things Britain and France did before, during, and after WW2, so I digress >Yes, that totally justifies sending children to their death rather than arranging a bloodless peace when defeat is inevitable. There's nothing selfless about that, it's the greatest act of cowardice imaginable. Why is capitulating and facing certain annihilation better than fighting on and facing only near-certain annihilation? Germany today is dead. It's pride is gone, it's culture is being replaced, and its people will soon be nothing more than a mixture of slavs and Africans/Arabs.
