reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses a plan attributed to Josh Feroz published in Project Syndicate on September 26, 2015, outlining six components of a comprehensive migration strategy. He quotes three key points: first, that the EU must accept at least a million asylum seekers annually; second, that “other quad financing is critical,” including proposals to issue long-term euro bonds to finance the migration crisis and the migrants’ social welfare when they arrive in the European Union; and third, that it is essential to involve Hungary directly in the program by establishing safe channels for asylum seekers, beginning with moving them from Greece and Italy to their destination countries, specifically bringing them to Greece, then to Hungary, and subsequently to Oslo. The speaker emphasizes that this is not a random or accidental story but a plan that was written, published, and is known. He asserts that they are fighting an organized group he labels the Empire of George Soros and NGOs, who are described as supporting anyone transgressing their legal system and financing illegal activity against the nation. The narrative connects migration to broader questions about how the European Union operates and how George Soros allegedly secured influential positions within many EU institutions by buying MPs and other leaders. According to the speaker, the plan’s execution aims to alter Europe and to eliminate and push aside all Christian conservative, national-based political leaders and voters from European Union decision-making bodies. The overarching claim presented is that the migration issue is part of a broader strategy to reshape European politics. In summary, the transcript presents a 2015 published plan with three highlighted points about accepting asylum seekers, financing mechanisms via euro bonds, and establishing safe channels through Hungary, framed within a larger assertion of an organized pro-Soros influence aiming to transform European political dynamics and marginalize Christian conservative leadership.

As a nation with an ancient history and unique language, we Hungarians are proud to have maintained our culture for over a thousand years. Our patriotism and Christian values may not align with mainstream Western political thinking, but they are deeply ingrained in our society. While I may not be a favorite among liberals, Hungary prioritizes family, nation, and God over individual ego. We face criticism from the West because we offer a different, more traditional interpretation of society, challenging the exclusivity of liberal ideologies. Despite potential dangers, we remain strong and resilient. While we seek rational relations with everyone, accusations of being a puppet are baseless, especially given our history with Russia. We believe that Europe needs Russian involvement in its security architecture.

Hungary chose to defend its borders during the 2015 migration crisis, a stance that clashed with the EU's open-door policy. We believed it was our right and duty to protect our nation, culture, and traditions. Many European nations are experimenting with post-Christian, post-national societies, which we see as risky. Despite being labeled a "totalitarian thug" by President Biden, our nation maintains strong economic and defense ties with the U.S. The core issue is our success as a conservative, national alternative within Western civilization. Our economic, political, and cultural achievements, rooted in traditional values and national identity, challenge the liberal world view. They criticize us because our success proves there is an alternative to their leftist liberal ideals.

As the longest-serving leader in Europe, I recall being considered controversial for emphasizing the middle class, families, secure borders, and prioritizing citizens. We were an island of difference in a liberal ocean, stopping migration, defending traditional values, and respecting religious communities. Now, with the US no longer kneeing on our chest, it's an appeasement. The liberal elite used taxpayer money to spread their ideology, financing NGOs and media outlets, a plot against our sovereignty. One motivation is money, opening gates for business activity. Leftists are ideologically driven, believing in integrating migrants with traditional society. Trump has changed the mindset of the West, defending interests, prioritizing economic competitiveness, and respecting traditional values.

Hungary chose to defend its borders in 2015 and deny entry to migrants without permission, which was the only reasonable thing to do. We have a right to protect our country, people, history, and language. Other European countries decided to create post-Christian, post-national societies, mixing different communities, which is risky. Hungary decided against that risk, which is why we're attacked and I'm seen as the European Union's black sheep. Germany made its choice to accept migrants and now faces the consequences. Hungary has the right to make its own choice. Despite past US support, I was labeled a "totalitarian thug" by Joe Biden. This is disrespectful, but we remain respectful of America and seek to clarify misunderstandings. Our economic and defense ties are strong, but political differences with liberal Washington create tension. Our success, rooted in traditional values and national identity, challenges Western liberals who struggle to accept a successful conservative alternative.

Prime Minister Orbán is seen as a controversial figure in the West due to disagreements with figures like George Soros, who believes borders are obstacles and migration is the goal. Orbán's resistance to this view has made him a target for left-wing media. Accusations of centralizing power, being undemocratic, and violating civil rights are addressed with a focus on Hungary as a "conservative island of difference." Orbán's nationalism clashes with international organizations like the EU and ICC, the latter of which Hungary exited due to disagreements over justice. Orbán is fighting postmodern secularism and radical Islamic immigration. On the Ukraine conflict, where Hungary takes a middle position, the question is raised whether it matters if Putin takes Ukraine and what the off-ramp is. Orbán defines Hungarian nationalism and the government's role in promoting Hungarian culture, including pronatalist policies. He emphasizes the importance of Christianity to Hungarian identity and fostering cooperation between government and religion. Regarding the U.S., Orbán has a warm relationship with President Trump and seeks U.S. foreign policy that strengthens allies like Hungary. He navigates a multipolar world with the U.S., China, and Russia, and considers the implications of China's rise. The U.S. president has tried to motivate Europe to move away from China.

The exchange centers on claims regarding a plan attributed to George Soros and its alleged global implementation to increase migration to the United States and Europe. Speaker 0 references a 2015 publication by George Soros, stating that the plan has now been implemented worldwide to bring millions of illegals into The United States and into Europe, and notes that Viktor Orban, Hungary’s leader, recently pointed this out. Speaker 1 recalls the details from the 2015 Project Syndicate publication, outlining two main components. First, Soros purportedly argued that the European Union must accept at least a million EU seekers annually. Second, he purportedly emphasized that Abekwa financing is critical and proposed issuing long-term euro bonds to finance the migration crisis, including funding related to migrants, social welfare, and care as they arrive in the European Union. In addition, the plan allegedly called for establishing safe channels for asylum seekers, beginning with moving them from Greece and Italy to their destination countries. The dialogue attributes these specific elements to Soros, presenting them as a policy framework or strategy. Throughout the discussion, Speaker 0 adds a brief, fragmentary remark, “that’s why they don’t like,” which appears to reference opposition or criticism without elaboration within this excerpt. Key claims highlighted in the conversation include: (1) a 2015 Soros plan published in Project Syndicate proposing that the EU accept a minimum of one million asylum seekers annually; (2) the proposal of Abekwa financing as a critical element, including the idea of issuing long-term euro bonds to fund the migration crisis, along with supporting migrants’ social welfare and care needs as they arrive; and (3) the suggestion to create safe channels for asylum seekers, starting with relocating individuals from Greece and Italy to other EU destination countries. The participants frame these points as explanations of a policy approach that they assert has been implemented globally, and they reference Viktor Orban’s commentary to support their argument. The transcript captures a concise allegation-based discussion about Soros’s 2015 proposals, their supposed financing mechanisms, and the establishment of safe relocation channels for asylum seekers, tied to ongoing political debates surrounding migration in Europe and the role of opposition figures such as Viktor Orban.

The liberal elite in the West used taxpayer money to spread their ideology, funding NGOs and politicians to undermine our sovereignty. One motivation is money, opening gates for business, but leftists also sincerely believe in ideas like open borders. We never tried to educate anyone; we always insisted on making our own decisions about migration. Trump changed the mindset of the West. Previously, migration was good, resisting it was bad. Now, defending your interests is good, and illegal migration is bad. The EU launched wars with potential economic partners like Trump's America, China, and Russia. Central Europe, however, is building good relations and prioritizing connectivity. We must find a way to cooperate, as isolation won't work.

Well, we in Hungary have been bucking the liberal trends for 15 years with policies like strong borders and prioritizing citizens, but Trump stole our thunder. We felt squeezed between the U.S. and Brussels, but now the U.S. isn't on our back anymore. The global liberal elite uses taxpayer money to push their ideology, funding NGOs and media against our sovereignty. It's a liberal deep state. They push open borders and transgenderism, driven by money and ideology. They believe combining Muslim migrants with Christian societies will create a better society, but we should decide for ourselves. Trump changed the mindset in the West. Defending your interests is now good, and traditional values are back.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the long-running effort to build civil society in the former Soviet Union, focusing on the Open Society Foundation’s role in Ukraine and the broader European reception of Vladimir Putin. Speaker 1 explains that the Cultural Initiative Foundation began in 1987 within the Soviet Union, and a branch was set up in Ukraine in 1990 two years before Ukraine’s independence. The foundation provided scholarships and supported civil society, and Speaker 1 asserts that the civil society’s maturity twenty-five years later is largely the work of the foundation. He notes that the foundation’s scholarships helped create a generation of leaders: those who were students twenty-five years ago became leaders later. Speaker 0 adds a personal observation that the new Ukrainian government and its leadership have been touched by Open Society and by Georgia, with many individuals personally benefiting from scholarships or having family members who did. The conversation then turns to the appeal of Ukraine as a model of open society, contrasted with broader European admiration for or susceptibility to Vladimir Putin. Speaker 0 points out that not all Europeans share the Ukrainian sympathy; she mentions that Hungary’s leader described Putin as a model, and cites Greece’s trips to Moscow and France’s Marielle Le Pen having close contacts with Putin. She asks how Speaker 1 explains Putin’s influence and appeal in Europe. Speaker 1 responds by situating the discussion in a political and historical context, noting his involvement in the collapse of the Soviet system. He describes himself as a political philanthropist and frames his perspective around the broader historical forces at play, implying that the appeal of Putin in some European circles is tied to these transformative historical currents. Key points: - The Cultural Initiative Foundation (established 1987 in the Soviet Union) and its Ukraine branch (1990) funded scholarships and civil-society work. - The foundation contributed to the maturation of civil society in Ukraine, with beneficiaries who became leaders two decades later. - Personal and institutional ties to Open Society and Georgia have touched Ukraine’s political leadership. - There is a notable divergence in Europe regarding Putin’s influence, with some leaders or groups appearing attracted to or engaging with Putin, while Ukraine’s open-society model is presented as a contrasting example. - Speaker 1 frames his view within a broader historical assessment of the collapse of the Soviet system, identifying as a political philanthropist.

The conversation centers on a view that the United States has failed in its proxy conflicts with Russia and Iran and that power is shifting to a multipolar world led by non-Western states. Stanislav Krapivnik argues that Russia’s pivot away from the West undercuts Western unity and that Europe is increasingly exposed as the West’s policies erode, with Russia becoming a leading anti-Western force for years to come. He frames the shift as not just multipolar but anti-Western in direction, noting that Russia’s stance has turned against the West and that the West’s “genocidal” actions and moral claims have damaged its legitimacy. He also asserts that the West’s actions have helped bring to power leadership in both Russia and Iran who are less amenable to Western influence. He highlights Trump’s regime-change actions as reflecting realignments away from West-facing regimes and notes the long-running Iranian threat as a consequence of Western policy. Key points covered include: - The shift from a Western-centered world order to a multipolar order led by non-Western powers, with Russia and Iran resisting U.S. and European influence. - Russia’s movement away from Western integration toward an anti-Western bloc, and the idea that the West’s moral posture has deteriorated, with calls that Europe’s rulers have failed to uphold moral standards while supporting aggressive actions. - Iran’s history of being pro-Western but ultimately rejecting Western dominance after regime-change attempts and pro-West leadership were removed; the discussion notes that Iran has demonstrated resilience by countering Western pressure and has weakened American influence in the region by striking American targets and allied interests. - Ukraine as a proxy conflict, with NATO involvement, and the view that Western leaders are pushing Ukraine into escalating confrontations with Russia. The speaker cites evidence that NATO and U.S. forces are deeply involved, including drone and missile strikes attributed to American planning or directive, and suggests that Europe’s leadership is moving toward broader war, despite public appeals for limited engagement. - The role of Turkey and the Baltic states: Turkey’s shifting position and its anger over Ukrainian actions; the Baltic states’ treatment of Russian minorities and the geopolitical risk of escalation if Estonia’s airspace is used for drone strikes against Russia, seen as potentially triggering a larger European conflict. - The argument that Europe’s security architecture is collapsing under its own hubris and dependence on the United States, with accusations that European populations are being molded toward war, militarization, and possibly even mobilization and conscription in several states (Germany, Poland, etc.). - The claim that deterrence must be reasserted; the speaker argues for making an example of Estonia as a warning to deter further cross-border aggression and to prevent a larger war, asserting that Europe’s leaders are too eager to escalate, risking a broader confrontation with Russia. - The broader cultural and historical analysis of Europe’s relation to Russia, including Peter the Great’s attempts to connect with Western Europe and Russia’s long-standing pendulum between East and West, with the speaker asserting that today Russia views itself as separate from Europe, forming a distinct civilization and political orientation. - The potential for a larger war in the near term if European leadership does not adopt a more prudent approach; the speaker warns that Orban’s political fate could accelerate conflict, and emphasizes that Europe must acknowledge deterrence realities or face nuclear risks. - The closing remarks echo Easter greetings, with the speaker returning to the grim prognosis of European demographic and political trajectories, highlighting a view that Western policy has empowered elites while threatening mass casualties and societal upheaval in Europe.

Emmanuel Macron and his husband reportedly went into hiding in a Paris bunker as thousands of French farmers blocked the capital with tractors, prompting arrests and rising calls for Macron to resign. Professor Richard Werner notes the protests are significant and may influence EU decision-making beyond France. Werner explains that the French government appears to be wavering on the EU–Mercosur free trade deal (Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay), which has been in the works for decades. The European Commission has binding authority, and under the new qualified majority voting system, France blocking it alone won’t stop the deal. Germany and Spain back the deal, while France’s opposition complicates approval, potentially delaying or revising the agreement if farmers’ pressure persists and media coverage sustains the public push. Farmers fear price declines from the Mercosur influx could undercut European agriculture. The current trigger allows governments to intervene if European prices fall by more than 8%; French farmers want this threshold lowered to 5%. They argue that European farming already operates with slim margins amid rising energy costs and EU-imposed burdens intensified in recent years. The discussion touches broader farm policy and nationalism in Europe: Dutch and German farmers faced herd culls and other policies, with Dutch and Danish protests cited. The Netherlands’ culling of herds and other measures are mentioned as part of a trend toward tightening control over farmland and food production, with alleged aims toward urban-planning shifts (15-minute cities) and reduced reliance on animal agriculture. The UK is also in the picture, with tractors in solidarity with French farmers. In the UK, inheritance taxes are framed as a tool to force privatized farmland back into state control, a tactic criticized as an expropriation policy. Oxford was among protest sites. Beyond agriculture, the conversation highlights Europe’s broader economic strain: Germany is in a third year of economic contraction—the longest since 1933—while other EU economies, including France and Austria, show weak indicators. Banking sector vulnerabilities are noted, with the ECB’s asset-bubble strategies in real estate contributing to potential instability. A new EU CO2 import tax system is described as highly complex (a 3,000-page framework with a 1,600-page registry), imposing substantial compliance costs on importers and potentially driving more firms out of business. Energy costs remain high, and climate-policy mandates are viewed as further straining the economy. The speakers critique leadership for focusing on external conflicts (Ukraine) rather than domestic economic revival, suggesting that ending the war could help economies recover. Viktor Orban’s Hungary is cited as a contrasting example, with border control policies claimed to reduce crime and pressures elsewhere. The exchange closes with a sense of urgency about Europe’s deteriorating situation, as leadership debates and domestic policy choices appear to align with worsening economic and social stress across the continent.

The speaker criticizes the use of extreme vocabulary to describe the government, such as "absurd" and "dumbest government in Europe." The other speaker agrees that not all criticisms can be justified but questions if the Hungarian government under Viktor Orbán is smarter than the German government. They acknowledge that they disagree with Orbán's policies but recognize that he prioritizes the interests of his country, such as importing cheaper Russian oil and gas. The speaker concludes that while they don't have to like Orbán, they understand his decision to act in the best interest of Hungary.

As Prime Minister of Hungary, I'm pleased to host AFD's Madam President in Budapest. German-Hungarian relations are vital for Europe's success. We discussed how AFD's policies could benefit Hungary, particularly on migration and energy. Europe faces trouble due to flawed content and form, with economic policies hindering growth and a democratic deficit as the EU ignores its people's desires. Hungary advocates for peace in Ukraine, while the US is now on the side of peace. We cannot save the EU alone; France and Germany must lead, with Hungary focusing on our own success within or without the EU. As Co-President of AFD, I thank Prime Minister Orban. My goal is to repair deteriorated relationships with neighbors like Hungary. Germany is weak with poor leadership and energy policy, causing problems like uncontrolled migration. We want a proud Germany, independent like Hungary. I'm running for Chancellor to fix migration and energy. We need to drastically cut taxes. We aim to reform the EU internally through strong nations, curbing bureaucracy. If AFD governs, we will follow Hungary's example, defending freedom.

Well, we lost our appeal after Trump. For fifteen years, Hungary stood against liberal headwinds, securing borders, and defending values. We were a hero, an island of difference, but Trump changed everything. Previously, the US and Brussels were crushing us, but now America's off our chest, a real relief. These liberal elites used taxpayer money to spread ideology, funding NGOs and politicians to undermine our sovereignty. The motive? Money and ideology. They believe in open borders and transgenderism, ideas not pushed on non-Western nations. This stems from a leftist community ashamed of Western civilization, aiming to destroy and rebuild it. But we believe in national decisions, not forced migration from Brussels or Washington. Trump shifted the mindset, valuing national interest and traditional values.

European leaders favoring restrictive migration policies are meeting in Budapest following Hungary's vote to criminalize individuals or groups aiding asylum seekers. This move defies the EU and human rights groups. Austrian Chancellor Kurtz and Hungarian leader Orban, both immigration hardliners, are attending. Hungary also outlawed EU attempts to relocate asylum seekers. Orban views himself as the defender of Christian Europe against a perceived Muslim invasion, a rhetoric that led to his election victory. The "Stop Soros" campaign, popular in Hungary, paints George Soros as the organizer of this "invasion," despite Hungary having low immigration rates. Human rights groups are disappointed and look to the EU and the Council of Europe for recourse. The EU Commission is expected to react, but Orban has defied the EU before. While the EU can threaten sanctions, excluding a member state is difficult, especially with rising populist support. A mini-summit on migration is planned in Brussels, highlighting the issue's urgency despite low immigrant numbers.

The speaker criticizes the European Union, claiming it has become a corrupt dictatorship. They accuse governments in countries like the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy of compromising people's health with vaccines. They also allege that democracy is being undermined through the withholding of information on vaccine deals and freedom of speech is being suppressed under the guise of combating misinformation. The speaker argues that the EU is driving up food and energy prices, confiscating land from farmers due to the Green Deal. They claim that the media, influenced by former politicians, is paid to deceive the public about non-existent diseases, climate change, and Eastern enemies. The speaker defends Hungary as a model for how member states should interact with the EU, praising its adherence to traditional Christian values, low energy prices, and strict immigration policies. They demand action from the parliament and commission.

The speaker discusses the challenges of governing Hungary compared to the US, highlighting Hungary's unique history and emphasis on sovereignty. They address criticism from Western elites, emphasizing Hungary's commitment to national sovereignty and social cohesion, particularly in rejecting mass migration. The speaker defends Hungary's decision to maintain its cultural identity and resist external pressures, arguing that it has been crucial for the country's survival and social stability. The conversation concludes by underscoring the importance of social cohesion for a strong nation.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban discusses various topics in an interview. He expresses concern about being labeled a fascist by the Biden administration and the media. Orban criticizes the liberal ideology in Europe and emphasizes the importance of national identity and unity. He believes that Ukraine is not winning the war against Russia and warns of the dangers of escalating the conflict. Orban suggests that peace should be pursued and praises former US President Donald Trump's foreign policy. He also addresses accusations of being a puppet of Putin and highlights Hungary's historical struggles against Russian occupation. Orban concludes by rejecting the use of the justice system against political opponents and emphasizes the need for fair competition and national unity.

Speaker 0 states they are not a fan of Europe's handling of immigration, believing Europe is being badly hurt and needs to get smarter on the issue. They commend the prime minister for taking a tough stance on immigration, wishing others would follow suit. Despite this, Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of Europe and their desire for it to do well. Speaker 1 notes that European Union policies have been changing over the last two and a half years. The focus has shifted from redistributing illegal migrants to stopping illegal migration, working with countries of origin and transit, and returning people. Speaker 1 mentions new rules about repatriations and credits Italy's example in lowering rates of illegal migration. Speaker 1 expresses optimism about the situation.

In this segment, the speaker argues against the idea that exiting the eurozone or the European Union would automatically sever access to the internal market, labeling such fears as fundamentally incorrect. The speaker references a position previously outlined in a Welt article from 2016, stating that every country within the EU should be allowed to leave the EU and automatically fall into the internal market, so that the free internal market continues to guarantee the fundamental freedoms between EU countries. The overarching objective presented is the creation of a European Economic Area, but the speaker rejects what is described as a “monstrous overbuild” currently practiced, characterized by tens of thousands of civil servants who are deemed unnecessary and overpaid, with a level of intrusion that is viewed as excessive. The speaker then shifts to a critique of the current leadership and policies, urging the removal of those in power within the EU framework, specifically naming Ursula von der Leyen and the policies associated with her tenure. The cited policy areas include a ban on combustion engines, CO2-related levies, heating laws, and building energy policy, among others. The demand is to “throw out” these people, as they are viewed as representative of an overreaching EU apparatus that the speaker does not support. The central message is that such a centralized and intrusive EU structure is unnecessary and undesirable. The text emphasizes the need for a free internal market among European nations, paired with the restoration of national sovereignty and secure borders. The speaker advocates for free exchange of goods and services among nations, suggesting that this approach would constitute real progress. The concluding sentiment reinforces a preference for smaller, less intrusive governance and a streamlined framework that prioritizes the free movement of goods and services within a European context, while maintaining secure borders and national autonomy. The overall call is for scrapping what is described as the EU apparatus, empowering nations to engage in open trade and cooperation without the perceived rigidity and overreach of the current EU system.

Being the president of the U.S. is easier than running Hungary, a small, landlocked country in Central Europe that has been invaded countless times. Yet, Hungary has maintained its distinct sovereignty, largely due to leaders like Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his political director, Balazs Orban. Hungary wants to remain sovereign, with the right to decide who they ally with and how to govern themselves. The contemporary liberal elites in Washington and Brussels, want a globalized system based on one ideology and are not used to this. We believe the only way to survive is through national conservative ideas based on national sovereignty and mutual trust.

The speaker states they are not defending Putin, but believes he has done a great job for Russia, better than any German leader. They claim Germany is declining while Russia is improving, and Germans should be angry at their own leaders instead of Putin. The speaker questions why Putin is considered a war criminal, but Angela Merkel, who they claim wrecked Germany through mass migration, is not. They assert Merkel "literally wrecked" Germany, stating it will not recover in their lifetime, and accuses her of letting millions of people into the country in a way that "hasn't worked."