Battle Scarred - Thunder & Lightning Compact Disc
Battle Scarred – Thunder & Lightning Compact Disc

1. I Won’t Run
2. Bring Back The Skins
3. Här Kommer Himmelsblå
4. Hangover
5. Thunder & Lightning
6. Backstreet Crew
7. Misfit
8. Another Cliché Song?
9. Won’t Give In
10. Concrete City Rebels
11. Stand Up And Fight
12. I’m A Rebel

Bonus Tracks
13. Gefle If
14. B.a.t.t.l.e S.c.a.r.r.e.d



by OldiesButGoldiesRAC

Hetzjagd – A.C.A.B. Compact Disc
Hetzjagd – A.C.A.B. Compact Disc

01. Kampf Des System
02. Wir Jungen Schreiten
03. Deutscher Soldat
04. Hetzjagd
05. A.C.A.B.
06. Treue
07. BRD
08. Sie Hassen Uns
09. White Rock ‘n’ Roll Life
10. Revolution
11. Handelt Jetzt!
12. Europäische Usa
13. Das Reine
14. Ich Scheiße Auf Euch
15. Zeit Der Stille
16. Final War
17. Raise Your Voice
18. Wildgänse Rauschen Durch Die Nacht (bonus)
19. Die Eisenfaust Am Lanzenschaft (bonus)



by OldiesButGoldiesRAC

Hetzjagd - Revolution Compact Disc
Hetzjagd – Revolution Compact Disc

01. Revolution (3:45)
02. Handelt Jetzt (3:09)
03. White Nation (3:52)
04. Europäische USA (3:26)
05. Das Reine (6:30)
06. Ich Scheiße Auf Euch (3:33)
07. Im Stich Gelassen (3:23)
08. Zeit Der Stille (3:19)
09. Final War (4:16)
10. Auf Dem Weg Zur Revolution (3:27)
11. Raise Your Voice (2:53)
12. Abnormal (3:17)

Edelweiss - Der Kampf geht Weiter! Compact Disc
Edelweiss – Der Kampf geht Weiter! Compact Disc

1. Der Kampf geht Weiter     07:51
2. Märtyrer für Deutschland     05:06
3. Ein bunt gemischtes Völkchen     06:45
4. Er steht auch heute noch zum Eid     03:58
5. I’m Just A Boot Boy     02:55
6. Germanenland     04:21
7. Bonzen     05:54
8. Wehrmacht     06:16
9. Und es wird Nacht     03:44
10. White Pride World Wide     03:52
11. Widerstand     05:53
12. Sterben kann ich nicht – Flammenherz     04:04

Die Deutsche Kavallerie Historische Reitermarsch Teil 2 Compact Disc
Die Deutsche Kavallerie Historische Reitermarsch Teil 2 Compact Disc

Grossenhainer Marsch, Fehrbelliner Reitermarsch, Des Grossen Kurfursten Reitermarsch, Brucker Lager Marsch, Pappenheimer Marsch Aus Dem 30 Jahrigen Krieg, Marsch Der Finnlandischen Reiterei Aus Dem 30 Jahrigen Krieg, Marsch Der Freiwilligen Jager Aus Den Befreiungskriegen, Kavalleriemarsch, Husaren Fedette, Leichte Kavallerie, Torgauer Parademarsch, Herzog Von Braunschweig, Geschwindmarsch, Mrsch Des Kaiserlichehrussuschen Leibgarde-Semenovskischen Regiments, Parademarsch Albrecht Von Preussen, Pariser Einzugsmarsch, Marsch Des Regiments Sebastopol and Definiermarsch.



by OldiesButGoldiesRAC

Tollschock - "Shut Down The System" Compact Disc
Tollschock – “Shut Down The System” Compact Disc

1. Face The Fact
2. Get Fucked!
3. Wir Sehen…
4. Fighting The System
5. Liebest Lied!?
6. Judge Me
7. You’re Not The Leader
8. Der Rebell
9. You Can’t Correct Me
10. Zuletzt Stirbt Die Hoffnung
11. My Words
12. Strategie Der Masse
13. Rocking For The Few

White Aryan Rebels - Noten des Hasses Compact Disc
White Aryan Rebels – Noten des Hasses Compact Disc

1. Noten Des Hasses
02. Der Mann In Roter Robe
03. Nigger
04. Sie Leben
05. Die Kugel Ist Für Dich
06. Ausgeburt Der Hölle
07. Zum Appell



by OldiesButGoldiesRAC

Spirit Of 88 - Totale Kontrolle Compact Disc
Spirit Of 88 – Totale Kontrolle Compact Disc

01. Wer kämpft, der kann verlieren (0:50)
02. System der Lüge (3:40)
03. Totale Kontrolle (3:13)
04. Was wir hatten, gehört ihnen (1:48)
05. Kindermord (2:25)
06. Die Straße frei (3:28)
07. Unsere Kinder (5:03)
08. Laßt unsere Brüder frei (2:20)
09. Wer jetzig Zeiten leben will (2:39)
10. Kommt Zeit, kommt Rat (3:19)
11. Umgestürzter Grenzstein (2:10)
12. Ich bin bereit (4:38)

I’ve recently come across an interesting document (found here) which details a conference that took place in Israel on May 7, 2013, called the “Jewish Contribution to the European Integration Project.”

It is comprised of transcripts of the talks given by the various Jews and European representatives who were at the conference, which was sponsored by Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and is well worth a read.

Dr. Sharon Pardo, in his “welcoming remarks,” begins the conference with a deluge of sickening praise for the Jews as “Europe’s Chosen People” and the “essence of Europeaness.”

Kalergi referred to the Jews as “a spiritual nobility of Europe…”

Anti European

Michael Mertes, German representative for Israel at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

Michael Mertes, German representative for Israel at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation.[/caption]An example of a reason given for this praise is that “the Jews in the twentieth century were the principal cosmopolitan, integrating element in central Europe: They were its intellectual cement, a condensed version of its spirit, creators of its spiritual unity,” but mostly it is predicated on the fact that they are and have been the main promoters and instigators of the ‘multiculturalizing’ of Europe – i.e. the forced integration and destruction of the identity, culture, and traditions of the indigenous White Europeans, who are now, thanks to this multiculturalism, likely to be replaced by an Islamic caliphate that will, in all probability, be defined by crime-ridden slums, terrorism, mass rape and brutal, long term internecine warfare.

Imagine holding an international conference in which European speakers claimed that Whites are “Israel’s Chosen People” and the “essence of Hebrewness” due to their leading role in the destruction of Jewish identity and the forced integration of millions of Blacks and Moslems into Israel, and you’ll have an idea of just how absurd and offensive this all is.

The message and tone of the document is essentially that because of the alleged Jewish Holocaust, Europe must be mixed and mongrelized with third world savages in order for Whites to atone for the unforgivable sin of allowing God’s Chosen to be harmed.

This mongrelization and deliberate destruction of European identity and the White race has always been the goal of the EU. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, whose ideas were inspiration for the EU and the European “integration project,” wrote in his book Practical Idealism that

The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

Kalergi referred to the Jews as “a spiritual nobility of Europe,” and claimed that emancipation from their ghettos was a gift from Providence that “provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit.”

I wish it could be said that Kalergi’s plan for a mongrelized Europe ruled by Jews was just some sort of paranoid, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, but it does unfortunately appears to be a reality – one that this document only serves to bolster. The speech transcripts provided therein give the typical kvetching over the threat of anti-Semitism you would expect out of such a conference, as well as some history of important Jews who have been instrumental in making the EU’s “integration project” a reality, such as Walter Rathenau and Fritz Bauer.

Fritz Bauer

The Patron Saint of Holocaustianity’s White Guilt Imperative: Fritz Bauer

Bauer is praised for his role as prosecutor in the second Auschwitz trial of 1963-65 where he successfully transferred guilt for the alleged genocide of the Jews from the NSDAP leadership onto not just Germans, but all Europeans collectively. That is, of course, a much more beneficial outcome for the Jews, as it helps to place them above reproach and at the same time morally disarms their European competitors, and so that is why Bauer is celebrated, specifically:

The crime against humanity committed by Germans has become in a large measure thanks to Fritz Bauer’s efforts, an essential part of the German as well as European collective historical memory. Without him the German public would have continued to live in silence about the Nazi crimes for much longer.

The most shocking segment of the document is by Michael Mertes who is not a Jew, but rather is a self-hating German. Mertes is apparently so wracked with racial guilt and hatred for his own German people that he claims to feel “a deep discomfort at symbols of collective pride such as the national flag, the national anthem, and national solemnities.”

Mertes describes the driving force behind the European integration project, with its philo-Semitic and anti-nationalistic overtones, as follows:

Nationalism (at any rate its ethnocentric version) had identified the Jews as an alien minority, excluded them from the Volksgemeinschaft – the national community – and finally treated them as enemies who had no right to life. In that sense, the fight against nationalism and the fight against anti-Semitism have always been two sides of the same coin.

Thus the project of knocking down European borders and making Whites a minority in their own countries in order to secure perpetual safety for Jews is a necessity that supersedes any possible negative consequences that may result from that project, and so Mertes enthusiastically and energetically works toward that end.

To put it in perspective, this was a German sitting in the highly nationalistic and hyper-racist State of Israel, quite literally plotting the extermination of his own people as retribution for the Holocaust – an event alleged to have taken place over 70 years ago by individuals who are no longer alive. Also bear in mind that Israel is an ethnically homogeneous state which expels non-Jews regularly and requires a DNA test for citizenship.

Mertes even goes so far as to pledge that if the Jewish led forced integration/genocide of Europeans were to cause a significant backlash an emergency law that will suspend nationalists’ right to vote, which he refers to as a “nuclear option,” could very well be put into effect:

Should the Euro crisis considerably strengthen right-wing extremist parties that openly advocate anti-foreigner policies and an anti-Semitic worldview, Article 7 could become a serious option.

Article 7 is cited as follows:

[The] Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. … [The Council] may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council.

That they will bomb a country into oblivion if it goes nationalist, using the alleged Holocaust as the pretext, is also heavily implied by Mertes, with Serbia given as an example:

[T]here could be situations where the imperatives “Never again war!” and “Never again genocide!” were mutually incompatible, and that the imperative “Never again genocide!” had to be given moral priority in case of doubt. When the “red-green” German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (a Social Democrat) decided in early 1999 to participate in NATO’s military campaign against Serbia to protect the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (a founding member of the pacifist Green Party) justified that step by citing the imperative “Never again Auschwitz!

“[T]he Shoah has had a strong, and even increasing, impact on European integration,” says Mertes, reassuring the Jews that “the fight against anti-Semitism has become a number one priority on the agenda of European elites and institutions.”

The implications of these statements are very ominous indeed.

What Mertes and other European leaders like him are doing by putting a foreign peoples interests above that of their own like this, is committing high treason, by any reasonable definition; as well as genocide, by the official U.N. definition:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  2. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  3. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  4. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

An ambassador from Spain, Alvaro Albacete, gives a similar talk, while using the history of the Inquisition as the moral pretext for allowing mass immigration into Spain in particular and the so-called Holocaust for Europe in general.

These themes are very revealing considering the nature of the conference. The European representatives did not simply talk about how they thought integration was a good thing, and about how great it was that Europe was well on its way to becoming a big wonderful multicultural utopia, and then thank the Jews for their central role in bringing this about; instead, they made statements such as this:

it is a particularly relevant government initiative of Spain . . . to address the reform of the criminal law regarding public incitement to violence or hatred, directed against a group defined by their religion or belief, descent or ethnic origin (anti-Semitism in the strict sense), as well as publicly condoning, denying or trivializing crimes of genocide (Holocaust denial).

And this:

Spain is not an anti-Semitic country. But there is some anti-Semitism in Spain. Hate speech is corrosive and contagious, and the moral corruption that it involves turns easily through demagogic speeches. For this reason, we must be as clear as our language permits us: Anti-Semitism, or any other type of discrimination have no place in the twenty-first century world in which we stand. This is what we want for Spain, and for the entire European continent.

It does not take a genius to read between the lines of the statements quoted above to understand what forced integration is really all about: It is not because “diversity” is an actual strength, or because there is a low birth-rate among Europeans, or about altruistically helping out “refugees” in need; it is about destroying Europe and Europeans as revenge for the Holocaust – as punishment – and to prevent them from ever having the capability of organizing and rising up to wrest political control away from the Jews back into the hands of their own people again, as did the Germans in the 1930s.

That is also, I will note, the only thing that really makes any sense. Diversity is most certainly not a strength, it is a weakness, as all data prove, and as anyone can see; a low birth rate could be fixed through simple government incentive programs; and most of these so-called “refugees” are a) not really even from war torn countries anyway and b) [these] healthy men of military age who – if their country really is at war – should be at home fighting rather than invading Europe and demanding free everything.

The Jews not wanting Europeans to have the capability of voting in an anti-Jewish government ever again, on the other hand, makes perfect sense – and so far they have been doing a very good job at accomplishing this goal.

The game isn’t quite over yet though.

The post The Jewish Contribution to the European Integration Project appeared first on American Freedom Party.

BUDAPEST — “Of course it’s not accepted, but the factual point is that all the terrorists are basically migrants,” says Viktor Orbán. “The question is when they migrated to the European Union.”

Viktor Orbán says 'All the terrorists are migrants.'

In his office at the Hungarian parliament, the prime minister points toward the flowing Danube. In another era, an aide notes, the Turks followed this river into the heart of Europe. Behind Orbán hang two maps: One shows a short stretch of Hungary’s border with Croatia and another gives a panoramic view of the Balkans toward Turkey, from where hundreds of thousands of migrants have made their way north this year.

In a wide-ranging 90-minute interview a week after the Paris terrorist attacks, Orbán lays out his prescriptions for Europe’s ailments: An impenetrable external border to boost security and save the Schengen treaty on passport-less travel within the EU; a new EU constitutional convention that strengthens the power of nation states and weakens Brussels; and normalized relations with Russia.

Thinking of Paris and its aftermath, the Hungarian leader posits an “overwhelming logical” connection between terrorism and the movement of Muslims into Europe — in the last few months as well as over recent decades — that to him and many Europeans is “an obvious fact,” whether “you like it or not.”

“The majority of our leaders in the West deny the fact,” he adds. That denial of the “obvious” — which the Hungarian leader blames on political correctness run amok — destabilizes European politics by increasing “the gap between the leaders and the people.”
‘We want to save Schengen’

Whether European leaders like Orbán or not, the Hungarian’s critique of the EU’s migration policy this year changed the terms of the debate. With blaring alarms about terrorism across Europe, the leader of this country of 10 million is again the uncensored Id of the European right, offering ideas that the rest of the bloc can’t ignore (and even, in some cases, pronounce aloud).

Linking terror to migration, Orbán says the “number one job” after Paris is “to defend the borders and to control who is coming in.” NATO and EU countries are “at war” with Islamists in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and, he says, “it’s quite logical” that “enemies” would seek to send fighters with migrants coming into Europe.

We criticize [the EU and NATO] because they are far from perfect, but the starting attitude of the Hungarians to Western institutions is always positive.

“All of them present a security threat because we don’t know who they are. If you allow thousands or millions of unidentified persons into your house, the risk of … terrorism will significantly increase.”

Orbán says he doesn’t presume to tell Western European countries such as Belgium and France how to deal with the offspring of Muslim migrants who in his words belong to “parallel societies,” holding EU passports but rejecting Western values.

But, as calls grow to rethink open borders — with five Western European countries holding preliminary talks about a more limited “mini-Schengen” zone (which wouldn’t include Hungary) — Orbán presents his hard line on frontiers as the best way to silence calls to suspend or bury Schengen.

“We would like to save Schengen,” he says. “We would like to save the liberties … including the free movement inside the European Union,” which, he says, are imperilled by unregulated and porous external borders.

An EU rethink

Earlier this year, Hungary was widely criticized for building a barbed wire fence along its border with Serbia to stop the waves of new arrivals. For Orbán, Hungary was merely upholding the law of the Union that Greece (“a major problem for us”) failed to do by allowing the migrants to continue north unimpeded.

Orbán’s opposition helped torpedo a scheme championed by the European Commission for a mandatory resettlement of migrants across the EU, and flipped the discussion from how best to accommodate the refugees to one of how to stop them from coming at all.

If I disagree with them, they say, ‘You are not a democrat, you are not a good man, you belong to the bad guys’.

For the Hungarian, this year of troubles — from Greece to migration, from terrorism to possible Brexit — calls for a wholesale rethink of the EU. The bloc “is only reacting, reacting, crisis after crisis, instead of having a concept.” Asked if the EU will be here in 10 years, he says, “it’s an open question.”

Orbán says he wants the EU to call a new convention on the future of Europe with a mandate “to modify even the Basic Treaty,” the kind of exercise that the bloc last carried out a decade ago. That convention, overseen by former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, drafted a new constitution for the EU, which was killed in referendums in France and elsewhere.

In Orbán’s proposed reform of the EU, the balance of powers would tilt back toward nation states and away from leaders in Brussels who have “very much the pro-United States of Europe position,” he says.

The Hungarian has no illusions about the ability of a leader of a small Central European nation to force his views onto the EU agenda. Even David Cameron and the British “are not strong enough to generate a European discussion,” he says, and are limited to negotiating terms of a deal for Britain alone.

“Innovation is part of” politics, he says, “but basically it’s an art of reality.”

Although he’s widely seen in Western Europe as a leader who’s turned his back on “liberal democracy” and embraced Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Orbán insists he wants to save the EU and NATO. “Hungary’s place is [in the] West,” he says. “We criticize them because they are far from perfect, but the starting attitude of the Hungarians to Western institutions is always positive.”

In his own telling, he’s not the populist provocateur of EU media lore. “The basic character of all politics is cooperation, not confrontation,” he says. “We cooperate. We confront when it is necessary, not because we enjoy it.”

Putin is someone you can cooperate with. He’s not an easy man. He is not a man who has a known personality, so don’t imagine him as you like to imagine Western leaders.

Getting up from his seat around a large conference table, Orbán walks over to the books stacked on his desk and shelf. He picks up a tract on Europe he’s reading by Jürgen Habermas, the German philosopher and proponent of a closer, federal EU. “The most dangerous book,” he calls it.

There are essay collections by the founder of the ultra-conservative Catholic Opus Dei movement (Orbán’s a Calvinist) and the Hungarian Nobel laureate in literature, Imre Kertész. He’s reading about the political theory of Islam and another book on the global sexual revolution — “an anti-gender study,” he says, “about how we destroy freedom in the name of freedom.”

‘The very arrogant mainstream’

At 52, Orbán carries a healthy paunch and says his football-playing days are mostly behind him. He puts on a tie and jacket for a photographer, then quickly dispenses with both. In his part of the world, he says, leaders are more laid-back.

He speaks fluidly in English and cracks jokes, showing off a talent for retail politics that won him three national elections (1998, 2010, 2014) and altogether a decade as Hungary’s prime minister. While critics say he caricatures Muslims, financiers and liberal elites, and uses his majorities in parliament to whittle away at Hungary’s relatively young democratic institutions, Orbán himself defies facile caricature.

He isn’t a “dictator” à la Putin or Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, to use the gibe thrown at him by Jean-Claude Juncker. In his half comic, half mutually contemptuous routine with the European Commission chief, Orbán returns serve by calling the Luxembourger “the Grand Duke.”

The Hungarian waves aside comparisons of his ruling style with the autocrat in Moscow and Turkey’s strong-handed leader as “ridiculous” and “a lazy way of thinking” — an insult that Western European politicians use to try to marginalize him.

“If I … disagree with them, they say, ‘You are not a democrat, you are not a good man, you belong to the bad guys’,” he says. Any time he breaks with the “very arrogant and aggressive” Western European “mainstream” on migration or another issue, he says, “we are morally labeled as xenophobic, Putin-type, whatever.”

Liberalism in Europe now concentrates not on freedom but on political correctness. It became a sclerotic ideology. Dogmatic, may I say.

The censures come not just from Brussels and Berlin but Hungary’s ally across the Atlantic. In unusually blunt terms, the U.S. ambassador to Hungary last month criticized the Orbán government’s crackdowns on NGOs, limits on media freedoms, the packing of the courts with allies, the redrawing of electoral districts in ways that favor the ruling coalition and corruption.

Speaking at Corvinus University, Ambassador Colleen Bell noted America’s “concerns about the state of checks and balances and democratic institutions,” the “centralization of power” and “opaque” decision-making.

The ‘illiberal democrat’

There is an oft-noted irony that this pro-democracy dissident of the late 1980s, who co-founded the Fidesz student-led movement and helped bring down communism, is seen in the second half of his nearly three-decade run in Hungarian politics as a threat to its democracy.

Addressing doubts about his democratic bona fides, Orbán says he has been in parliamentary opposition longer — a dozen years — than in power, and expects to “lose again” in future elections. “You can’t avoid to lose because that’s part of the job,” he says.

Yet in this run as prime minister, Orbán has made his name abroad as a prominent critic of “liberal democracy,” someone who pushes an alternative political model for Europe. In a widely circulated speech to ethnic Hungarians in Romania last year, he announced his desire to build “an illiberal new state based on national foundations,” and argued that “liberal democracy can’t stay competitive.”

It was the moment that Orbán most vocally broke with the liberalism that defined his early years in politics with Fidesz and a leadership role in the Liberal International throughout the 1990s.

Orbán admits his thinking and behavior have changed over 25 years — “it would be irresponsible not to change” — but also says that liberalism itself, both in Hungary and globally, isn’t what it once was.

“Liberalism in Europe now concentrates not on freedom but on political correctness. It became a sclerotic ideology. Dogmatic, may I say. The liberals are enemies of freedom” who, he says, want to limit Hungary’s freedom to make its choices as a nation-state.

“Liberalism became a mainstream politics. They fight against everybody who does not belong to the mainstream. But not to belong to the mainstream does not mean that you are not in favor of freedom. Just the opposite now.”

Me and Putin

Orbán’s political journey took its first sharp turn after Fidesz lost seats in a 1994 elections. When another party picked up the urban, youth electorate that Fidesz had courted, he went to find votes on the traditional right and outside Budapest, in religious, rural areas. His former liberal friends call the shifting shapes of Orbán opportunistic and cynical. He says he’s right where he belongs, with the “national-Christian-civic political family.”

“You know, I’m a village boy,” says Orbán, who grew up in Székesfehérvár, a town of 100,000 southwest of Budapest.

People call him a populist.

“Because I am,” he retorts. “The problem is nobody knows what [that] means. It does not sound bad in Hungarian ears. Being a populist means that you try to serve the people. It’s positive.”

Support for his Fidesz party has grown from 40 percent last December to almost 50 percent today, according to polls.

The other notable irony of the modern Orbán is his relationship with Putin. He fought to bring down the Soviet empire and remove Russian troops from Hungarian soil. Putin, a KGB officer who was a cog in the Soviet system that Orbán battled, is now seeking to restore Russian power.

These days, Orbán opposes EU sanctions on Russia over its incursions into Ukraine, though Hungary has signed off on them since last year. He nurtures close business ties with Moscow, particularly in energy. Despite the Russian occupation of Crimea and military presence in eastern Ukraine, Orbán is among the more vocal EU leaders calling for the West to come to terms with the Kremlin.

Given his staunchly anti-Soviet past, does his friendly relationship with Putin give him any discomfort?

“It’s strange, but politics is full of strange things, so it’s not uncomfortable,” Orbán says. “That’s part of the job. And you know politics is basically not a personal issue, and what I represent is not my opinion but the interests of the Hungarian nation. And the point is very clear, without the Russians it’s impossible to manage rightly the future of the Hungarians. So we have to have a good balanced relationship with the Russians.”

He says he has no personal warm feelings for the Russian leader — adding that he would not deny it if he did like Putin, just to please Western opinion, which “you know, does not matter for us.”

“Putin is someone you can cooperate with. He’s not an easy man. He has no personal feelings [for] you…. He is not a man who has a known personality, so don’t imagine him as you like to imagine Western leaders.”

With Russia, Orbán continues, any country can have only a “power policy based on reality,” adding that “if you would like to have a relationship with the Russians based on principles, it will never work.” European and Russian principles are “impossible to harmonize. So put aside principles, ideologies and look at the interest, and find the common sense realpolitik agreements. That’s the Hungarian approach.”

When the EU soon considers whether to extend sanctions on Russia, at least until June, Orbán says he will voice his opposition but won’t use his veto power to stop the extension — “a veto is a nuclear bomb, it’s good to have but don’t use it.”

He says the final decision on sanctions ultimately rests with the Germans.

While Orbán notes that Hungary’s closest ally in Europe, Poland, backs sanctions, he says he finds more than a little hypocrisy coming from Berlin. Germans “like to appear as opposing” him on sanctions on Russia, he says, “but in fact they are doing even more than we are” to work with Russia. Orbán points to Berlin’s support for a second gas pipeline from Russia to Germany under the Baltic, which will deprive Ukraine of billions in yearly transit fees.

Balancing the Germans

“Hungarians are easygoing guys in the European Union,” Orbán says, laughing. “What we are doing, we are saying — and what we are doing is exactly what we are thinking. So it’s not complicated.”

Orbán says the Russia relationship helps him balance a testy one with Berlin: “We would not like to depend on the Germans.”

Angela Merkel is no fan of his, and the feeling seems mutual. Still, Orbán says it’s easier to work with the German chancellor than with Putin: “With Merkel we have a principle-based policy. So if you agree on certain principles, it’s easy to manage the reality. Just the opposite with Putin: We can manage some reality, but never agree on principle. As we Hungarians like to say, it’s a different coffee house.”

The post Viktor Orbán Says ‘All the terrorists are migrants’ appeared first on American Freedom Party.