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.

Hungary's authoritarian leader Viktor Orban is meeting with Republicans in Washington to push for an end to US military aid to Ukraine. This aligns with the growing alliance between America's far right wing and Europe's, as seen earlier this year when Orban hosted high-profile MAGA supporters at CPAC Hungary. Orban's remarks at the event revealed his opposition to LGBTQ rights and "woke culture," while promoting Hungary as an incubator for conservative policies. It's no surprise that American right-wing figures, including Tucker Carlson, have been supportive of Orban's fascist dictatorship. This alliance poses a threat to democracy and plays into the hands of Putin, who favors Orban's policies. President Biden, on the other hand, will be hosting Ukraine's president at the White House.

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.

In 2015, Josh Roche published a plan stating the EU must accept at least 1 million asylum seekers annually. Financing is critical, and he proposed issuing long-term Euro bonds to finance the migration crisis, including migrants' social welfare. Safe channels must be established for asylum seekers, starting by transporting them from Greece and Italy to destination countries, including Hungary and Austria. This is not accidental but a deliberate plan. The speaker claims they are fighting an organized gang called the Empire of George Soros and NGOs. They allege this group supports those transgressing the legal system, finances illegal activity, and aims to capture main positions inside EU institutions by buying out MPs and leaders. The speaker asserts this plan aims to change Europe, push aside Christian, conservative, and national-based political leaders and voters from EU decision-making bodies, and that migration is not just about migration.

In 2015, George Soros proposed a plan involving the EU accepting 1 million asylum seekers annually, issuing euro bonds for financing, and establishing safe channels for migrants. This plan is seen as an organized effort to change Europe by sidelining conservative, Christian, and national-based political leaders. Soros is accused of influencing EU institutions and supporting illegal activities against nations. The focus is not just on migration, but on reshaping the European Union's decision-making process.

In 2015, George Soros proposed a plan to the EU, calling for the acceptance of 1 million asylum seekers annually, issuing euro bonds for funding, and creating safe channels for migrants. This plan is seen as an organized effort to change Europe by influencing EU institutions and sidelining Christian conservative leaders. Critics argue that Soros and NGOs are undermining national sovereignty.

In 2015, George Soros proposed a plan for the EU to accept 1 million asylum seekers annually and issue euro bonds for financing. He emphasized safe channels for migrants to reach their destination countries, including Hungary. This plan is seen as an organized effort to change Europe by influencing EU institutions and sidelining conservative leaders and voters. The focus is not just on migration, but on broader political objectives.

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.

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.

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.

European leaders favoring restrictive migration policies are meeting in Budapest following Hungary's vote to criminalize those aiding asylum seekers, a move defying the EU and human rights groups. Austrian Chancellor Kurz 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 was popular, despite Hungary having one of the EU's lowest immigration rates. Soros is seen as the personification of a foreign invasion. Human rights groups are disappointed and hope for intervention from the EU and the Council of Europe, which is reviewing the bill. The European Commission is expected to react, but human rights organizations risk jail sentences if they help illegal immigrants apply for asylum. The EU has warned Hungary before, but Orban continues to defy them. The EU can threaten, but excluding a member state is difficult and unpopular. A mini-summit on migration is planned in Brussels this weekend. Despite low immigration numbers, the issue remains urgent, highlighting a gap between reality and perception.

The speaker provocatively asks what would happen if Viktor Orbán were the head of the European Commission or the European Council, noting that a politician needs a vision and that Orbán has one. They point out that in Hungary many people do not agree with him at the national level, because they feel the policy’s impact in their own lives, yet there is a broader European view of Orbán that differs. The speaker observes that Orbán is popular among Europeans, even if not among politicians, because he speaks openly about issues. They credit him with openly addressing migration from the outset, contrasting this with Western European politicians who they claim lied to their own people by saying migration wasn’t a problem. The speaker suggests that Western claims included assurances that “brain surgeons” would arrive, using a metaphor about the idea that with new access, anyone could open a pastry shop in Vienna, implying hollow promises by the EU-era negotiators during enlargement. They state that people remember these deceptions, and that Orbán perceived and highlighted them. The speaker notes that during the Covid period and various crises, Orbán’s approach has been driven by a clear vision and a hardline policy. The overall point is that Orbán’s stance is characterized by clarity about migration and a steadfast, uncompromising political line, which the speaker believes resonates with a broad European audience despite mixed reception at home in Hungary.

In 2015, George Soros published a plan to bring millions of illegal immigrants to the US and Europe, as noted by Hungary's Viktor Orban. Soros proposed the EU accept at least a million asylum seekers annually and establish safe channels for their relocation from Greece and Italy to other EU countries. Orban's criticism of Soros is attributed to his opposition to these policies.

The speaker discusses a meeting where various influential figures, including the prime minister of Hungary, a bishop, and business leaders, are being silenced for questioning globalism and the push for closer union in Europe. The speaker expresses support for Brexit, citing the suppression of differing views at the meeting as confirmation of their decision.

European leaders favoring restrictive migration policies are meeting in Budapest after Hungary passed laws criminalizing those who help asylum seekers, defying the EU and human rights groups. These laws include an amendment stating that alien populations cannot settle in Hungary, thus outlawing EU attempts to relocate asylum seekers. Victor Orban sees himself as the defender of Christian Europe against Muslim invasion, a rhetoric that led to his election victory. The "Stop Soros" campaign was popular, even though Hungary has one of the lowest immigration rates in the EU. Human rights groups are disappointed and hope for intervention from the European Union and the Council of Europe, which is reviewing the bill. However, these groups risk jail sentences if they help illegal immigrants apply for asylum. The EU has warned Hungary before, but Orban continues to defy the EU. While the EU can threaten sanctions, excluding a member state is difficult and unpopular. A mini-summit in Brussels will address the migrant issue, despite the fact that immigration numbers are down. There are only around 3,000 refugees in Hungary, revealing a gap between reality and perception.

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.

Hungary faces opposition from various entities: the Soros Empire, Brussels bureaucrats, and American democrats. They demand things we don't want to give. The US administration wants us to join the war, provide weapons, and give more money to Ukraine. Brussels wants us to accept migrants, build migrant ghettos, allow sexual propaganda in schools, and surrender economic decision-making rights. They also want us to give up unanimous decision-making on foreign policy. If we refuse, they will withhold funds and support our internal enemies. Hungary rejects being part of a right-wing club that only answers to Brussels. We prioritize our independence and sovereignty, as mandated by our constitution.

George Soros is my opponent. He has a powerful army at his disposal, including money, NGOs, universities, research institutions, and Brussels' bureaucracy. He uses this army to impose his will on us Hungarians. Soros believes that the values we hold dear led to the horrors of the 20th century, but I disagree. It was the abandonment of Christian values by some Western European states that led to the atrocities of Nazism and communism. Unfortunately, today's progressives are planning to repeat those mistakes.

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.

George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire, is disliked in Hungary and many other nations for his attempts to influence governments. He was the first person to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez after his election, as reported in Spain. Despite being questioned about this meeting, Sánchez has never responded in parliament. It is interesting to see the alliance between the left and extreme left with globalist billionaires. This alliance contradicts their previous anti-globalization stance and allows these billionaires to dictate how we should live while they live luxuriously.