Is there a point when these people stop and think "Am I the racist now?"

 If we judge by the out-roar at the election of a white woman as Miss Zimbabwe, the answer is no.

I mean, first of all, she is African. She is Zimbabwean. Her ancestors have been living there for a long period of time - she is not a "colonizer" any more, than an American Italian whose ancestors arrived in the 19th-20th century, or someone whose parents came over from Cuba in the '70s, is an immigrant. So no. She is part of that country. Denying it because of her skin color or her ancestry is racism. Unless you also agree that black, Asian, whatever people living in Europe can never be Europeans. I am sure a lot of Fascistic people would agree with you. Not sure this is your ideal company, but once you start thinking about progressive identity politics, you will find that there is a great deal of overlap between the two ideology.

Also.

She is a minority, so multiculturalism, representation, whatever should be a good thing. But apparently this is always a one-way street with these people. And in their wallowing of in their own victim-hood, which seems to be the cornerstone of their identity, while they eagerly import American-style identity politics, they simultaneously express the vilest racism directed at this woman. And this is perfectly fine,  which does not cause any cognitive dissonance.

Astonishing.

As a side-note: the fact that most of Africa is a shithole today with appalling living conditions for their inhabitants cannot be blamed on the evil white men any more.

Antisemitism in Hungary

 When you read about antisemitism in Europe, Hungary always comes up in online conversations: the accepted wisdom (for whatever reason...) is that Hungary is a very antisemitic country. The fact that there are hardly any incidents (-and none of them were violent, compared to the "non-antisemitic" UK), does not really matter.

Interestingly, certain rabbis have a very opposing view to this narrative. Perhaps we should listen to them.

Migrants, refugees and terrorists - and the short memory of everyone involved

During the height of the migrant/refugee crisis in 2015 many -admittedly right-wing- media outlets and politicians asked the question about how many terrorists are entering Europe with the unchecked flow of people.

Remember the rat cartoon? That is sooo Nazi! (Except it isn't, but don't let a deliberate misinterpretation stand in the way of a good controversy.)

Remember when Hungary tried to enforce the Schengen rules as a border country, and got a shit-ton of flak for that? Just remember the name "Keleti Railway station".

For this they were called Nazis. Yes, I know we don't like Fox News and the Daily Mail; however the whole point of being a rational and liberal person is to actually use, you know, reason instead of labels. Unlike those stupid right wingers who are just putting everything you say into the category of "tree hugging pinko commie", and hence ignore it. No, liberals never would do that.
Ever.

Except they did. Or many of the people who pride themselves as liberals did so. Which is a shame; a shame we would like to quickly forget. They ridiculed, they accused, and they used red herrings so that the actual issue -how many terrorists enter Europe unchecked- was never asked. In fact if you search 2015 articles, you will be reassured, how unlikely it is for terrorists to go through all that suffering just to walk into Europe; after all they can fly, right? (A BBC article talks about Schengen issues pretty eloquently, although appears to avoid some tough questions involving events a couple of months prior...)

After the wave of attacks, of course, the narrative changed; now we can read about how these pesky terrorists used the crowd to mask their presence (just like the rat cartoon suggested), how they abused Europe's naivety to enter and do their shenanigans; but no one in the Guardian, Independent, New York Times, etc. stopped and said: you know, guys? We were wrong. No; what you get is a report on terrorists using the Balkan route to enter Europe, and then an attack on the one politician who dared to mention that it is a very real danger. The terrorist in question came through the Keleti Railway station into the EU I would like to stress. He was helped by well-meaning people (or, being somewhat cynical, people who sought to get political capital out of the situation), who then marched to the Austrian border to demonstrate how evil it is to enforce the law. In other words: terrorist (well, several, as we know) did what those Nazis were warning us they would. Now what? Do we apologise? Or do we keep going on with the offensive?


In fact, they still seem to be very much attacking the one guy who was right in this case. Don't get me wrong; Orban is no saint. He needs to go; this post is not about him. It's just in this one case he was right, and he was right when it mattered- during the height of the crisis, and not in hindsight. Since then his 2015 suggestions of refugee camps outside of Europe (oh, are they hellish? YOU NAZIS!), the protection of borders (I wonder how you do that without fences to force people use the border checkpoints?) -even by the Guardian, and so on have been adopted quickly by the people who called him (and the whole nation of Hungary) a Nazi; and refugees are now called migrants. (It's interesting that even the Guardian changed its tone, and nobody seems to care.)


Yet nobody had the guts to say: you know what? We fucked up. These other guys were right. They just pretend the past did not happen, and by the magic of the media, indeed it has been erased from the history books. And we're not talking about an ancient kingdom's past, or if the Black Prince was indeed such a blood-thirsty tyrant. We're talking about changing what happened two years ago. We're talking about decisions made that cost lives. Could have been some of these events avoided? Who knows? But that does not absolve people who made them, who called others trying to argue for a different approach Nazis, and then now pretend the whole thing did not happen.

It is truly Orwell's worst nightmare coming to life.

Don't let good bigotry to go waste

When is it OK to be bigoted, xenophobic (or racist, although this is a bit of a murky distinction)?

Why, when you're talking about those smelly Eastern (well, Central) Europeans! Just do a quick search on the comment section of any so-called progressive, liberal newspapers, and you will find extremely bigoted views expressed against Poles, Slovaks, Hungarians, all in the name of liberalism, equality, anti-xenophobia and European Values.

Seriously. Just check it out. (Yes, it's only one. You can look for the rest. It's not very difficult.)

Anyhow, enter Mr Frenchman. (If you wanted to know his name, you can find out. He DID say he does not hide behind an anonymity, he DID post his comments under his own name, he IS a journalist, and he DID try to erase all his misdeeds. I find especially the last part repugnant.)

Anyhow. Do a quick read of this reddit post from a black girl asking about Hungary.

Mr High Horse, a self-confessed journalist and teacher assesses that "most of Hungarians ARE racist", and then brings up two unsubstantiated little stories, and a lot of (probably intentionally) misinterpreted things (like a candy called Negro) to support his claim. Let's stop here for a second. Someone, claiming to have journalistic integrity and whatnot, talking from a liberal point of view simply makes a bigoted statement that essentially puts him into the same camp as the people he decries (racists, not Hungarians). Then proceeds to make a couple of off-hand comments, and when he realizes he really, really put his foot in his mouth, he proceeds to erase his comments and delete his account.

I decided to immortalize this little performance as it is very much a representative sample of the treatment of these smelly Eastern Europeans all over the Continent, with the exception that most journalists and politicians are not forced to face a reality check. Well, here's an indication for you what would happen in a larger scale if that was the case.

How shady statistics is used to lie -poverty in the US and around the world

So here's the thing. I lived in the US and I've lived in several European countries. I know the US-as far as you can know a continent-wide country-, and I have first-hand knowledge how poor people (one in six, apparently) are in the US and what challenges they face; after all I was among them. (I made 16K which was skirting the poverty line in the early 2000s. Later on I made much more, so I got to experience middle class standards as well.)

Same with Europe: I grew up poor, later I experienced the middle class experience, and I've obviously seen how my friends and colleagues live, and obviously talked to people.

So I have no illusions; I've seen all over Florida, South Caroline, Washington DC, New York State, Virginia; I have seen how poor poor people really are. And then you get these articles.

Especially this graph is telling:

Apparently the author thinks that the bottom 10% poor in the US live almost as good as the top 10% of Japan (and Poland?? How did Poland get to the same level as Japan? What arcane statistical methods they used?), they live about the same as the top 10% of Israel, and they live considerably better than the top 10% of Portugal.

Just let it sink in for a while. It might make someone living in a Salt Lake City suburb feel awesome about himself (time for some 'Murrica! shouts), but just stop for a second and really think. The richest 10% of Portugal apparently live on food stamps, have no health insurance, and cannot afford higher education. Really. (Interestingly the author himself admits he lives in Portugal; apparently he is unfamiliar how Portuguese people live, or he is unfamiliar how the bottom 10% of the US society lives; either way it's strange.) Let's compare how the Swedes and the Germans live. Or even Italy -you know the place where the upper 10% lives lives that are as bad as the lower American 10%'s. Child mortality, healthcare costs, class divide, prison population size... hardly seem like the Americans get the better deal. Or perhaps mention the inequality adjusted HDI. How about increases in life expectancy worldwide? Perhaps not being able to afford life-saving drugs? But let's move on, since it does not fit our agenda.

But in the meanwhile, we also have reports like this. Also stories showing people not being able to afford other food than McDonald's -contributing to obesity and other food-related health issues. (As a side note: it's really astonishing; I found that it's cheaper to buy fast food than to buy stuff for a picnic in a supermarket, for example. A sandwich with some fries and soda will cost you about 6 bucks. If you want to make sandwiches and have some salad, you'll spend about 25 for two. Which tells you a lot about healthy choices and money.)

But let's just forget the poor and how they live better than those even poorer Europeans. (Although let me tell you: I'd rather be poor in Hungary than in the US; at least I would get healthcare.)

Let's just think about the quality of life. How do you define quality of life? Does a middle class American with no maternity leave, hardly any vacation time and almost no sick leave have a better quality of life than someone who does not have to worry about his  health insurance if he loses his job? (Or she, but it would make the sentence clunky to specify.)

Does having a mortgaged house, a crippling student debt that cannot be defaulted, and an almost complete lack of social safety net really makes your life better?  How about the people who cannot get insurance because they have preexisting conditions? Does having two cars in the family and a crappy house in a suburb in the middle of nowhere make up for the choice between an expensive -and life saving- treatment or sending your kid to college? Or how about a friend of mine who did not get to see his GP about his diabetes for six months because he just graduated with his PhD and was temporarily unemployed?  Does it sound like a well-off nation? Does it even sound like a civilized nation? Has the author ever toured the slums around (and inside) big cities? Are those -usually black and latino- people really better off than the richest 10% of Portugal? Are they even better off than the lowest 10% of Portugal? I kind of doubt it.


I'm really stunned by these articles; either the authors are stupid or they think everyone else is, but regardless which option is true, it's just astonishing. The media creates a narrative which seems to become truth. Incredible.

So Sebastian Kurz told Profil that only the best educated migrants should be allowed in Austria.

(Could not find the original German article, and strangely no English reports are available on this interesting take on helping war refugees. If it helps, here's a Hungarian report of the interview.)

Let's ignore the fact that had Szijjarto said something like this on behalf of Hungary, the whole Western media would be screaming about racism and the rest.

Let's just think about the implication of this statement a bit, shall we?

Option #1: we are talking about war refugees. The Austrian minister essentially says that we only should help the well educated, rich refugees, and leave the rest to their fate.
This, if you ask me, is an insanely un-European attitude; I'd hazard to say it would justify a little international uproar. After all, this is a very cold-hearted, and frankly evil stance. We can safely say it reminds us to the darkest moments of European history.

Option #2: we are talking about economic migrants. In this case it's a fair stance, however it ignores a lot of things that should have been discussed before even one economic migrant was let over the border.
These things are:
1. why are we allowing in millions of economic migrants in the first place?
2. why did the mass of people start walking towards Europe last year?
3. why are we trying to impose hypocrisy costs on countries who refuse to allow economic migrants into their countries? You have no right trying to shame and coerce countries to accept economic migrants, after all.
4. Why nobody's talking about the costs and benefits of taking millions of economic migrants?

These question, obviously, will not be asked either by the media or the politicians. They seem to be quite content on using this sliding scale of "war refugees" and "migrants" whenever it fits their narrative, trusting that the average reader is an idiot who cannot see how he or she is manipulated. And the worst thing is that it seems to be working. Nobody stops to think about these issues; they read a short article, they take up the war cry, then move on. A couple of days later they repeat the same process with another article which is diagonally opposing to their previous opinion. It works with everything; even when these two opposing things happen at the same time: take the war crime that is the siege of Aleppo, and the heroic liberation that is the siege of Mosul.