So-called civil society organizations that are members of the Soros Empire always have at least two traits in common: a cover story and then their true, underlying aim. Their cover story can include, among others, cultural activities, education, climate action and human rights advocacy. But once we scrape the surface, we uncover among their driving forces at least one or all of the following tenets of the Open Society concept: elimination of obstacles to migration (including governments); suppression of national identity; depriving traditional values of their original meaning, including the notion of the family and gender; and banishing Christianity from public life.
Hungary embodies everything that these organizations oppose. No wonder, then, that they criticize us so. This was well illustrated by the annual human rights report recently published by Soros-pioneer Amnesty International, which contains many of the features of Hungary-bashing that by now seem to show up in mainstream media according to a regular schedule. The choreography is all too familiar. “Independent and objective” journalists review the reports of so-called “independent” civil-society organizations, followed by an uproar from “independent” Europhile politicians. Once members of this troika, so contemptuous toward Hungary’s national interest, have finished citing each other, they launch an affront — not sparing any theatrics — against the Hungarian government and the Hungarian people who adamantly oppose the Open Society concept.
The abovementioned human rights report is dubious, to say the least. It is no surprise that the authors are most preoccupied with the fact that Hungary refuses to open its borders to migrants who first arrivedin Serbia. Their political bias is proven by their portrayal of certain issuesto which Hungary has provided effective, legitimate and just solutions. Hungary has been blocking illegal mass migration, which no doubt is a sore point for enthusiastic advocates of migration. While we provide support for people to remain and prosper in their homelands through the Hungary Helps Program, what drives their animosity is their unwavering commitment to building a supranational Europe. We do not turn to Amnesty for guidance in moral and human rights issues and for good reason. Amnesty, with its support for managed migration, cannot elude blame for the victimization of migrants at the hands of human traffickers nor for European citizens becoming targets of jihadist terrorists imported to our societies through mass migration carried out at the expense of public security. Their deceitful practices are even more harmful when hidden under the canvas of objectivity.
When Amnesty International mourns the end of freedom of expression, they mention self-censorship. This intangible product of the mind is a typical case of giving a scientific wrapping to bias and partiality. A simple search of the notion that seems so popular these days yields a perfectly incomprehensible data set. The equation is familiar; it is only the trending claims, scientific-looking phrases, and innovative elements of liberal vocabulary that are interchanged from time to time. This is hypocritical and spurious coming from an organization mired in astonishing allegations that several of its employees committed suicide in light of its leadership’s misuse of power and an allegedly “toxic” work environment.
We are nonetheless in agreement with the said human rights report on one principle: We must always stand in support of the most vulnerable and defenseless. Yet, as they sit in their ivory towers of liberal supremacy (and perhaps intoxicated by their double standards), they completely neglect the persecuted Christians who are today the world’s most persecuted religious group. It is high time that they cared for those whose situation has only worsened during the current global pandemic. And by this, I do not mean the self-appointed Instagram-martyrs propagated by the Left’s victimhood culture. It takes great courage to look around and admit what we see happening around the world. It is time to break free from the dogmas that prevent free thinking, that hinder the ability to face in all honesty the reality around us, free from ideology and driven only by the desire to understand what is seen and said. By not doing so, one also fails to realize just how many in Europe face challenges and daily hardship for belonging to indigenous ethnic minorities on account of which they are made to feel inferior in their own homeland. By not doing so, one fails to recognize the enormous burden that mass immigration places on European citizens whose parents and grandparents were the ones to lay the foundations of our welfare societies following the war. While Amnesty International publishes condemning reports, Hungary helps. And Hungary does this not only by taking aid to where it is needed most but with personal visits to these vulnerable communities as well.
To illustrate this, it will suffice to mention that it was during the current global pandemic that Hungary, through the Hungary Helps Program, rolled out its action plan on food assistance that allowed for the provision of daily nutrition to beleaguered communities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Lebanon and Syria. These people experienced firsthand what it means to be abandoned and have no hope of help. The primary principle of the Hungary Helps Program is that we take help to where the need arises, instead of bringing communities in need to Europe. We do this after having gained familiarity and knowledge of the situation and needs of vulnerable, discriminated, persecuted and threatened people living in crisis regions. We listen to them and ask them what they require most in order that they may lead a life of dignity.
This is what we recommend Amnesty International focus on instead of denigrating Hungary and the Hungarian people.