Finding your backbone

So apparently White House reporters now started to ask difficult questions from the President. Like why he was lying during Trump's presidency. (Sorry for the belayed post, life and all takes precedence.)

 Which is all nice and everything, however, where were these very same reporters in 2002 when a different president (who was then looking like an absolute dolt, but compared to this one he was an intellectual giant) was lying about the reasons of a war of aggression - you know, something international law recognizes as a war crime. Only a comedian had enough balls to say uncomfortable things in front of the president.

There has been a really pathological interplay between politicians and the journalists who were supposed to keep them on their toes: in exchange for access, they agreed not to ask them difficult questions. This abandonment of their duty, this perversion of everything what journalism stands for had a major role in the rise of Trump.

So I guess congratulations, Huffpost reporter, you are awesome, but don't suck your own dick just yet. Your whole profession has failed in their one role that mattered (and no, it was not "make money for investors"). You are about fourty years too late.

 

Hungarian brutality at the border

So now apparently the border guards are beating refugees, and taking selfies with them.

Allegedly.

They also commit all sorts of abuse.

Allegedly.


Proof is somewhat of a low supply in these reports; after all, who has a camera to document these things in those remote parts of the world? (Oh wait. Cellphones have cameras... Never mind.) And there is nobody else there; after all, that part of the world is not even on the maps; so there are no NGOs, other border forces, or Frontex officers present; only the wily Hungarians, and the poor, downtrodden war refugees from... Iran? Pakistan?

So. We get photos of everything. Of American guards taking selfies with Iraqis they tortured to death. Of celebrity dicks and pussies.

But somehow the security is so tight that the evil Hungarian selfies -which, by their nature, were taken to share with their friends on social media- somehow elude the heroic investigative reporters and NGOs.

Apparently Hungarians know a lot more about security than the rest of the world.

Or, but it's the unlikely possibility, is that it's all bullshit.

And these very same papers complain about fake news and Trump.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

Anti-Hungarian bias in the media

Yes, I write a lot about it. Because it annoys me. Because it is present, and it is frankly strange, that the Western media would pick on a shitty little country that matters to no-one. Since I happen to be from that shitty little country, it annoys me. It also worries me, since the reason Hungary got the short end of the stick after WWI (and was punished way more than anyone else on the losing side) was one part due to the incredibly anti-Hungarian press in the UK and elsewhere. While British and Russian football hooligans were fighting on the streets, the British newspapers were worried about Neo-Nazi Hungarians who did not actually do anything- showing the photo of a Hungarian fan who happens to live and teach in Spain.

This is especially prominent during the times when the center-right is in power; during these times the cries of fascism, the return of the ovens and whatnot are always the loudest. One reason is simple: the Hungarian Left loves to complain about the destruction of democracy, the free press, and the inherent racism of Hungarians which can clearly be seen by them electing the wrong people. (They are fine of labelling their own people genetically inferior, too.) Also: antisemitism is on the rise, obviously. Even though facts and statistics don't really show it -especially comparing Hungary to France, the UK or the US, Hungary is clearly on the verge of firing up the ovens. Interestingly, when they don't get the stuff they want, they just bury an interview. 

The last couple of years of migrant crisis was also a great demonstration of this. They were complaining about closed borders (even though anyone is still free to pass through the actual border crossings, and ask for asylum), the brutality of Hungarian police (with carefully edited footage and no proof whatsoever), the chaos at the Keleti Railway station (as if the government could be held responsible for people striking up camp in the middle of Budapest...), and for not letting the migrants on the train (even though the Schengen Agreement kind of forbade letting this happen), where Jews are in danger (yet interestingly French Jews are fleeing to Israel), and so on and so forth. When the government's propaganda (which was quite inappropriate) mentioned no-go zones in the UK, the BBC and others jumped on it; even though the BBC four was airing "No go Britain" at one time, and there are issues with the whole thing. Sorry, guys, if you make documentaries like these, people will believe them, regardless of what the actual situation is... so you really should not complain. If you made a misleading documentary, then the onus is on you for the mistake. And if all else fails, just do the old guilty by association smear quoting some BNP nutjob. Suddenly his delusions mean that Hungary, is in fact, Nazi. Don't get me wrong: it's not about how innocent and pure the government is. It's about how biased the western media is, regardless of what the government does. 

The whole of EU used Hungary for their virtue signalling exercise, meanwhile quite content in the knowledge that someone else -that someone they are condemning with the strongest words- are doing their own dirty work. Once the migrant flood rerouted (even though, if they really wanted to keep to the law, they still could have applied for asylum), they themselves started building fences- which, apparently, are not that big of an issue. Only the Hungarian fence hurts these paragons of morality. The ones built before or after are fine. A fence between two EU nations (Slovenia and Austria), does not offend anyone, either. (Oh, but it's not a fence at all... it's a "gate with wings".)

Hypocrisy much?

Three more examples demonstrating the blatant anti-Hungarian bias in the Western Press.

Example number 1.

The recent shift to the Right in The Netherlands filled a lot of people with worries until the election. So what was the reaction? Did we read angry editorials that would shame OId Testament Prophets about the inherent Nazism of the Dutch?

Did we?

Well, not exactly.

We read a couple of lamenting articles on how we need to respect the differences in the EU project, and how not respecting them could lead to a powerful push-back.

So when populism makes way in Western Europe -you know, the civilized folks- then we need to consider the reasons, and gently ponder on the solution. When populism -and not even as extreme as the Dutch- is making way in Central -sorry, Eastern- Europe, then it's those unwashed barbarians are tainting our sacred European project!!

Example number 2.

Gabor Vona, the leader of the actual far right, the Jobbik  Party (think of Hungarian Ukip or Tea Party) went to London. Now, you don't have to make facts up to write bad things about this guy. You don't need to lie -there's enough bad things for everyone to choose from. Yet, the BBC did just that. For some reason which I cannot fathom, an ortodox Jewish organization actually demonstrated for him. The BBC simply edited the photos so that the signs were not visible, and then claimed that they were demonstrating against him.

It took a while -and some serious complaints from the group involved- to correct the mistake, but the first iteration of the correction was to simply remove them from the article altogether. Only in the next version did they get back in, with the correct caption this time.

Example number 3.

And then there's when the stars align and you can smear Trump and Hungary at the same time.

We're talking about Sebastian Gorka here. Who is, apparently, a Nazi. Let's just ignore everything about the case that might prove us wrong; we finally can call Trump a Nazi, since he is employing one.

Interestingly, the Jerusalem Post -of all newspapers- came up with a long analysis of the case, doing actual journalism. Journalism, which only required about 30 minutes of google searches, but apparently was not a feasible option for The Independent.

Talking about the JP... you know when foreign and domestic press is writing about Horthy as a rabid Nazi intent on exterminating all Jews? Well... 

It is indeed astonishing that aside from modern historians (whose work nobody reads) only the JP came up with a factual description of Horthy. Again; it's not to say he was a blameless saint with a halo; it's about not lying about the past.

This should really tell you something.


Addendum: after an extensive email correspondence with the Independent (because I honestly thought they'd need some information so I shared the JP article with them), this was published. The article is far from coherent, but hey! We can cry Nazi!

Double standards, hyperboles and a complete lack of historical knowledge

That's one thing that the NYT's facebook page was full of idiots comparing Hungary to the Nazis because they have decided to detain asylum seekers until their status can be verified. I mean this is quite expected from the virtue-signalling part of the "liberals" who love to show how pious and true to the cause they are by condemning anything and anyone.

This, obviously, was not the first time. A certain Austrian chancellor did the same in 2015, the Romanian Prime Minister did the same, and several newspapers alluded to the same issue: just because a country does not agree with Brussels and Germany (and upholds the law as it is bound to do), it's essentially a Nazi country. (Although Orban makes it hard to agree with him; he is kind of a douche.) It's a difficult concept apparently: just because a country has a different take on how it imagines its future, and decided it does not wish to share the problems with large-scale immigration of low skilled Muslim immigrants (and what comes with it: enclaves, increased crime rates, etc., etc.), it does not mean that they are Nazis.

And now a Saudi prince has stood in line of the Nazi-train. It seems like we have finally reached a breaking point where even the most socially sensitive countries, the well-known bastions of humanitarianism have had enough and are now forced to say it how it is: Hungarians are Nazis for obliging the law, and making sure that only people who are bona fide refugees can get into Europe. Amid the huge outcry I still have not heard any alternative solution how to deal with hundreds and even thousands of people who can just disappear at whim after submitting their paperwork (if they bother to submit it at all). Strangely silent are Merkel and Junker about this whole issue; what I suspect is that everyone are secretly relieved that this is being done, but submit to the whole charade so that they don't look like they approve. Let someone else take the blame for an unpopular decision.

What I would like to know is how the "progressive left" feels like being on the same side as the Saudis... (Although to be fair it never really bothered anyone in the West. Beheadings, slavery, women's rights, illegal wars in Yemen never really appeared on the radar of these newspapers and politicians. Not to mention those millions of people they took in on humanitarian grounds.)

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.

Torture and international law in our little world

So Mike Pompeo and the Orange baboon are openly advocating torture now. Openly.

Newspapers report on this as if it was about discussing the weather, or perhaps some mildly embarrassing issue, like a herpes infection.

Nobody screams their bloody heads off about the "Freest Country" on earth advocating torture. I find this incredible. Apparently rules do not apply to some. International laws do not apply. The previous round of war criminals are still living their lives in complete safety and without being bothered by sharp questions (and I don't even mention tribunals), and here we go, the next round comes about. In other words: the US -don't forget, they are the "torchbearers of democracy, equality, whatever" can without any consequence break the law that governs international relationships. It should be discussed, it should be talked about: if the strongest nation decides the rules does not apply to them, they are essentially jeopardising the whole international legal framework, even if the whole Western world seems to do its best to ignore this. (As they undoubtedly realize this issue.) Keeping up the illusion of strong international laws does not help actually making them strong. It only shows off the hypocrisy and utter lack of moral principles of the West, enabling others to do whatever they wish to -after all, if the US does not care, why should they? Nobody is fooled by this display. You may pretend the US, the UK and other paragons of democracy are governed by laws, the stink of torture chambers and bombed weddings is still permeating every meeting room you are discussing these high-minded ideals of international law.


So let me say it again: the USA has broken, admitted breaking, and openly considers breaking international law. The perpetrators were not and are not being investigated. And the media reports it without even raising a single fucking eyebrow, as if torture was not really a big deal.


I guess you really should not be surprised that people tend to be cynical when it comes to the "bad Ruskies" or "bad Iran" routine, and cannot be adequately bothered to be outraged. I have to say I myself start to feel sorry for Milosevic and other small-time war criminals.

Aleppo and Mosul again - the double standards and the media

I guess the hypocrisy cannot increase indefinitely; sooner or later others -who work for the very media outlets I've been criticising, and who have been responsible for forming the public opinion and pressuring politicians-  tend to realize, or rather, face the facts.

Enter the Independent.

Weirdly they finally admit what I've been saying all along. I wonder what it took to make them to do so. Mind you, I'm not claiming to be a prophet of any kind; I just used common sense and a wee bit of history. Something, that apparently can be ignored freely by the media and politicians, without any repercussions whatsoever.

Very few articles acknowledge the Western media and political elite's hypocrisy about Israel, the Middle East, and those great allies they keep in the region. Heck, 40 000 are dead in Mosul, but there's Boris anywhere yelling war crimes.

The media has a real responsibility for the reasons outlined above. They should not just be able to get away with an "oops, sorry". Heads should roll. They helped their political masters to get countries into wars since the time of Yellow Journalism started; some accountancy should be expected by now. These people helped to spread death and suffering, and now they look around innocently, saying "what? Us? But we're just reporting the news!"

They should burn in hell.

Terrorism and the Balkan route -perceptions last year and today

So it seems like Abdeslam did use the Balkan route for smuggling terrorists into Europe. So did others.

Let this sink in for a while. Even though it seems like people have a memory of a goldfish (not to mention politicians and journalists, who are entirely possible that not members of the same species as the rest of us), let's just recall a couple of things from last year. Like that infamous cartoon with the rats. (Let's forget that the whole outrage was manufactured since the cartoon did not suggest what the outraged journalists said it did.) Or that the EU's counter terrorism chief said there was unlikely to be a connection between migrants and terrorists. Or ask the UN High Commissioner for refugees. Or the fact that the entire Left in Hungary (and the international press) used this as a political tool against the Hungarian government instead of actually recognising the threat unchecked migration (or worse, if they did, they used it as a weapon against Orban nevertheless. Priorities, I guess.)

Curiously all these people are silent now. The news that terrorists indeed used the Balkan route is quietly dropped and forgotten. No mea culpas, no retrospective analyses how they could been so wrong, how the others who were right were painted as the villains... No; this whole business is best left forgotten, and move on to the next shouting campaign without any lessons learned.

Guess what. This is what gave you Brexit and Trump. This is why the Far Right is getting stronger everywhere. You can't just call everyone you disagree with a racist neckbeard, and you especially can't do that (and keep doing it) when they are right and you are wrong. You might have the bullhorn to shout, but the credibility deficit is growing. You probably should have noticed after the Brexit vote or Trump's victory that things are not so swell outside your bubble, but you apparently have not.

I guess we're all going to suffer for it.

When is a wall not a wall?

If you have not lived under a rock for the last year or so, you are very aware of Hungary's wall. In fact this is something so deplorable, the country should be ejected from the EU. (Let's ignore all the other walls coming up before Hungary's.)

And now, Austria, a country that likened the country to Nazis (literally), is building its own wall -the second one. The first one was between Austria and Slovenia (two Schengen countries); this one is going to be between Austria and Hungary.

The contrast between the two walls is incredible. (Well, between any wall and Hungary's.) If you look at what politicians say about these walls (next to nothing), and what journalists say about these walls (poor, overran countries trying to cope) and what they say about Hungary's (OH MY GOD, THEY ARE WORSE THAN THE NAZIS AND THE COMMUNISTS, THOSE BARBARIANS, AAAAAAAGH), you come to a conclusion: there is something rotten in Denmark.

What difference a year makes...

So the Daily Mail (a delightful paper aimed at well-informed, affluent readers  disgusting tabloid) has published a cartoon last year.

Just to be clear: the cartoon does NOT say the refugees are rats. It says that rats -terrorists- enter with refugees undetected. Yes, the Daily Mail is not a very respectable newspaper. No, even they can have a valid point now and then.

That did not stop the outrage machine starting up. From the Huffington Post to the Guardian people were up in arms comparing this to the Nazi cartoons depicting Jewish people as rats. The comparison is very much flawed (as I said: the refugees are not depicted as rats; the ISIS terrorists are, which, frankly, is not very nice to the rodents.) Some people were claiming it was racist because "Syrians don't dress like that", but that really is scraping the bottom of the barrel... it's a cartoon about migrants from the Middle East. It has to make a point in one frame.

Orban got a lot of flak for linking terrorism to uncontrolled migration; he has been called a xenophobe and worse by the Hungarian opposition, and by the foreign press.

Fast forward 2016. In July Merkel said the following: 

  
terrorists entered into Europe last year with the migrants.  

She did not draw a picture, true.
So... saying it in 2015 made you a Nazi (when you could have done something about it), saying it today (when it's too late) is fine. I have not read anything about Merkel being a Nazi. Why do you have to jump off a cliff first, and then say it was a bad idea, to be politically correct? Why are people who say it is a bad idea to jump off to begin with are labelled Nazis? I'd think they'd be called smart to foresee problems -with uncontrolled migration in this case. The people who warned about the dangers were proven right in every single issue so far- even with the rapes... which frankly I thought was just demagogic populism appealing for the xenophobes. It turns out I was wrong. Apparently a lot of the newcomers have issues with not assaulting women sexually.

But no, the Huffington -and Der Spiegel, the NYT, and all the rest (Mama Merkel included)- were huffing and puffing about Nazis and xenophobes when people asked these questions, or warned about this. Now, a year later it's all forgotten, and the very same people who huffed and puffed are talking about the same things for which they labelled others Nazis. Orban and others -who, let's make it clear, who are corrupt cleptocrats and populist asswipes- in this case actually had a point: before you let in millions upon millions from a different culture, let's take a look at how similar groups fared in Europe (Paris, Belgium, even the UK). For this they -and the entirety of their countries- were labelled xenophobes. (Instead of asking them about untold millions of EUROs disappearing... it seems like corruption is encouraged.) For once, Orban actually had Europe's best interest in mind, and papers derisively quoted "experts" saying that he was trying to present himself as visionary. Guess what. He WAS one. And not because he is so smart. These things were clear for anyone with an iota of brains. He was a visionary, because all the others were blinded by dogma.

Today all that's forgotten. Today those enlightened Western countries are talking about strengthening border controls, talking about terrorists sneaking in, and all the rest; as if they had no memories from last year. (One thing you do have to give them: they still insist on letting millions more in as a solution to a problem that can only be solved where it comes from.)

Incredible.

Lions and donkeys

This famous line is supposed to be about the British soldiers of WWI- the poor, brave souls, who suffered through hell over and over again, and died needlessly by the hundreds of thousands because of the –perceived- incompetence of their superior officers.

This post is not about these officers, and what they could have/should have done to avoid this suffering. This post is about our world leaders: politicians, bankers, and pundits.

Christopher Hitchens supposed to have said that during his first meeting with world leaders during a dinner, he realized that we are led by people who are markedly NOT smarter than we are. In fact, he realized to his growing horror that these people were more stupid than he was.

This is a sobering thought, but, if we take a look at world events, it is very much possible that it’s true. We, the little man, Joe the plumber, the plebs, sleep well, knowing that our elected (or not elected) leaders are smart, they know what they are doing, and they are with a plan. A plan that might go wrong, but they have one nevertheless. We never actually stop and think about what they are doing. If we did that, these people would not be in power for long. The sad fact is: we are (lions or not) being led by donkeys.

We can be more forgiving towards rulers who inherited their position, or were put in place by a foreign sponsored coup. They did not get to their position of power through their merit; they were chosen by either sheer luck (they were the ones who exited through the vagina of their mothers) or by the whims of their sponsor. Wilhelm the Second was born to be a Kaiser; and nobody thought of making him pass an intelligence test before he took his throne. The Sah of Iran was put into power by a British-US lead coup; nobody stopped to think about his abilities as ruler. So when these people fuck up, we can dismiss them as the unavoidable results of a non-democratic political system. (Although we’d have harder times explaining the very much effective Chinese technocrats, who were not voted on, but who WERE selected according to their capabilities.)

But the sad fact is that our elected leaders are not much better than an inbred aristocrat. To see this, it’s enough to take a look at the politics of the post First World War world, and especially the US of A. Democracy does not mean meritocracy. Just the opposite, it seems.

The US has been consistently acting on knee-jerk reactions to perceived threats, and based most of its politics on ideological grounds, rather than realpolitics; just look at how successful they were at transforming an anti-colonial struggle in Vietnam into an anti-Communist war; or how they achieved the presence of Al Quaida in Iraq following their invasion.

And not to be accused of America-bashing: the very same thing can be said about European politics. It seems like our dear leaders either act on very short-term, short sighted policies (like the constant support for oppressive regimes and “freedom fighters” abroad), or on ideological grounds regardless of facts (the fixation on austerity above all else in British politics), or simply out of general ignorance, cluelessness and stupidity (the Ukrainian conflict or the recent issues with dealing with the migration problem).

The Ukrainian conflict is an especially good case to this point. A quick recap: Russia pulled back from East Germany and the rest of the satellite states on the condition NATO (which, we kind of need to keep in mind, is an anti-Russian alliance) does not try to move East. Fair enough; the US did not tolerate any deviation from its ways in its own spheres of influence. (Just look at how they reacted to Cuba, and the misery they wrought to Central and South America with coups, banana republics, death squads and puppet dictators.) Any sane, and reasonably informed person (yours truly included) would understand this. And in fact, did.

Yet, the EU and the US (along with the NATO) has violated this agreement over and over again. They pushed further East, which obviously distressed the Russians. Don’t forget: they are a paranoid people, when it comes to the West, and with good reason. They have about 40 million reasons to be paranoid: the death toll of the two World Wars together. The Communist takeover, which resulted from the First War also did not help to make them more trustful of our conflicts. The NATO has been edging closer and closer; there have been efforts to put a missile defence shield into place in Central Europe; and lo and behold, Germany will be hosting US nuclear weapons again. Why would the Russians NOT be worried? Wouldn't you be? So when the democratically elected (albeit corrupt) government in the Ukraine was toppled by a coup, and a coup in which the US had its hand in, the shit obviously hit the fan.

The international press depicted the situation in a very pro-NATO, pro Ukraine (even going as far as ignoring the influence of the far-right light in the new Ukrainian government) - but it’s just as false as their reporting about the Georgian conflict in 2008. Both journalists (if you can call them that) and politicians ignored the crucial fact: the Russians reacted to a situation the NATO/EU has helped to create in both cases. In Georgia the NATO emboldened Georgians shelled Ossetia to try to conquer the contested territories, to which the Russians reacted with force. You did not have to be a genius to see the Russian reaction coming; yet it took both the NATO and the Georgians by surprise. In the Ukraine they reacted when they saw that the possibility of Western military bases close to their Western border –and the loss of access to the Black Sea- was becoming a reality. Again; no great surprise here. If you poke the bear, you have to expect that the bear will not roll over. In fact, you can expect just the opposite.

You can decry the Russians to be evil, to be Hitler, but the fact remains: the US would not have tolerated the presence of a Warsaw Pact nation in Latin America, either. In fact, you only need to look at Nicaragua or El Salvador to see what happens when a mildly socialist government is elected there –democratically. Or how they reacted to the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba –even though they already had more missiles in Turkey at the time.

And so we have it: the EU “sleepwalked” (not my words) into a volatile situation with Russia. A situation which did not need to happen, a situation which you could foresee –even if you are a lowlife little guy, like me, with no access to classified intelligence and international experts. And yet this shitstorm happened nevertheless, because the politicians in charge were absolutely, completely retarded, and were unable to behave like responsible adults. The same case can be made about the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the way Merkel and others dealt with the refugee situation in 2015… it all shows an utter inability for logical thought and planning. I cannot believe but it seems like that in the Ukraine situation only Putin had shown the slightest shred of intelligence… and unfortunately in many other cases there were not even a Putin around to act as a grownup. And this is not limited to politicians. Billionaires, CEOs and other, supposedly smart people sacrifice long-term benefits on the altar of extremely short-term profits. They are happily amassing wealth, creating incredible inequality (something they mustknow will create political instability), fight the acceptance of climate change, hence delaying action, so that they get some more money (something they also must know will impact their own children, like it or not), or work hard to dismantle the welfare state, even though they must know a happy and healthy workforce is more productive than a sick and demoralized one. You can’t export all jobs to China. It seems like the “elite” is far from the evil, scheming overlords many people would think them to be; there are no Illuminati, no Free Masons or Conclave of Rabbis. They are more like egoistic, infantile little fucks, who have no real idea what the long-term consequences of their actions are.

I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to have people who are intellectually vastly superior to me to lead us, even if they are schemers, and not bleeding heart liberals. I would prefer to have the Illuminati to these bunch. The sad fact is, we’re in no better situation than the Tommies in 1915; only our problems are not as acute as theirs were. Perhaps this is why we let these morons run amok: we don’t perceive the problem either.

Islamophobia and Hungary

This whole clusterfuck with the refugee crisis levelled a great deal of accusation of racism and xenophobia against the country.

Let's just forget for a second what 160 thousand plus people pouring over the border will do to people's attitudes; let's no discuss other aspects about the whole "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation the country is in presently. Let's not discuss right now how Fidesz and Orban are making things worse, because they are moronic nationalistic fucks, and clueless amateurs.

Let's talk about Islamophobia, and why the average Hungarian is worried about Muslim people.

There are a couple of reasons for this. (These are explanations, not excuses.)

One is isolation; there is a precious little exposure to Muslims and Arabs for most Hungarians. They don't really know people who are either.

There's a historical reason as well: Hungary did not have a very good experience with Muslims in the past. The Ottoman Empire effectively cut the country in three, depopulated enormous areas which later were populated by other peoples (leading to the trauma of the Peace Treaties after WWI), and made the country ripe for subjugation for the Hapsburgs. People don't have fond historical memories of the Turkish occupation, and for most -unfair or not- this is the only exposure to the Islam.

And there's the fact that Western media is extremely anti-Muslim in its narrative. The picture they give to their viewers of the Middle East is a horrible place where these uncivilized barbarians are living under horrible dictators and religious fundamentalists (forgetting to mention the West's role in this), where everyone is violent and would happily blow himself up after raping your daughter screaming Allah Akbar. This is the picture coming from abroad; no wonder people have warped views. It's kind of rich for the very same journalists to condemn anti-Muslim sentiments that they themselves helped to foster.

An other is the whole Israel-Palestine narrative. The country -in this respects as well as in many- is well behind the curve. Here if you say that maybe, just maybe the Palestinians might have a point, you are an anti-Semite. Here the "land without people, people without land" bullshit still holds water. Here, when a famous liberal commentator/writer (TGM) writes a damning article in HVG (Heti Vilag Gazdasag) about the Gaza war, other left-wing liberals slam him, and call him an anti-Semite; furthermore, they say only Israel stands in the way of the Muslim hordes threatening Europe -and it's perfectly acceptable in a left-wing paper! This narrative shows these dirty Arabs throwing stones and blowing themselves up -and only if they stopped, there would be peace in the Middle East.

And this leads to my favorite people to hate: the left-wing intellectuals in Hungary. I am left-wing. I have socialist views, I have liberal views (and some conservatives as well) - I feel more at home with Bernie Sanders than Hillary Clinton. However, the Hungarian versions of Chomsky are frankly spineless, intellectually corrupt little fucks. Tota W Arpad (who was one of those people condemning TGM for daring to express sympathy to the Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza), Agnes Heller, and yes, Imre Kertesz, the Saint Nobel Price Winner Holocaust Survivor, and Scourge of Hungary, who likes to point out how terribly racist Hungarians are, and how horrible that only in this country you can find racist people, and drawing subtle parallels between the Holocaust and the Fidesz government (while alluding collective guilt over the Holocaust).

What has this gentleman said not long ago?

Let's see.

“Europe will soon go under because of its previous liberalism which has proven childish and suicidal. Europe produced Hitler, and after Hitler there stands a continent with no arguments: the doors are wide open for Islam; no longer does anyone dare talk about race and religion, while at the same time Islam only knows the language of hatred against all foreign races and religions,” writes Kertész in his book, according to a summary by the blogger Thomas Nydahl.

“I should say a few words about politics too… Then I would talk about how Muslims are flooding, occupying, in no uncertain terms, destroying Europe; about how Europe relates to this, about the suicidal liberalism and the stupid democracy… It always ends the same way: civilization reaches a stage of maturation where it is not only unable to defend itself, but where it in a seemingly incomprehensible manner worships its own enemy.”

Doesn't he sound like Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, or Gabor Vona of the Jobbik? I think he remarkably does. (This, of course, was never picked up by the Guardian and other international news portals; after all, it's not Orban we're talking about.) Let me be clear of this: this is not an isolated statement, made by a rambling old man. 

So. Xenophobia and racism is only bad if it's anti-Semitism. (As I said, this sort of thinking is quite accepted in the Hungarian left, which likes to depict itself as the epitome of liberalism.) As a little amusing side-note, someone actually told me that he is right to be afraid of Muslims; he was in the death camps... This person, of course, knew that the Nazis were not Muslims, but apparently, they must be just as bad.

So, Muslims are bad.

And NOW we hate Orban because he talks a lot more moderately than Kertesz himself? Are we surprised that this has a lot of effect on people who never in their lives met or talked to an Arab or Muslim person are worried? They get this from abroad and from home; from the left or the right. After all, Kertesz and the Jobbik finally can agree on something! It must be true!

So before you condemn the average Joe because he is worried about the Muslim hordes, perhaps you should condemn those who lit this fire and keep pouring gasoline on it.