2017 French elections

The news has been full lately about how Le Pen wants to "exploit" the latest terror attack in Paris; also a lot of lamenting is about of how the Far Right is surging ahead. (Although it seems like these news outlets like to blame Le Pen herself, as if she was doing everything on her own, and the French had nothing to do with the whole thing, unlike those pesky Eastern Europeans, who are en bloc racist, and that's why they keep reelecting Nazis. Interesting contrast.)

This amount of blindness is simply astonishing.

If the Far Right wins in France, they win because they were handed the election on a golden plate. They were the only ones who expressed any unease about the increase of Islamic fundamentalism (and terrorism) in France; they were the only ones who dared to say anything about uncontrolled immigration. If the electorate shares some of these worries, some of these opinions, and nobody else picks them up, what do you think will happen? Sure, you can come up with statistics about how many more people die of other acts of violence than terrorism, but you'd miss the major point: most of those acts of violence happen between people who know each other. They don't involve thinking about speeding trucks when you take a stroll in a Christmas market, or gunmen when you're attending to a rock concert. You can say that if a drug dealer is murdered that it has nothing to do with you, and in some respect you'd be right. If you don't mix with the bad sort of people, in general, you have a good chance of avoid being beaten, knifed or shot. You can't say the same thing about terrorism; it's random, and it can kill you. The last couple of years have shown how inept security services are identifying individuals who may be planning acts of terrorism. Politicians have been shown to be delusional of what their electorate thinks about the influx of large number of largely uneducated Muslim migrants, and quick to condemn anyone who does. There has been an incredible amount of accusations of racism, xenophobia and Fascism for everyone who dared to voice any worries, devaluing the meaning of these words. In Western Europe only the Far Right was willing to address these issues, and now it does not shock anyone if you call them racist or Fascist; these words just don't mean anything; not really, not any more. Judging by the comment sections your average reader of even the Independent and Guardian will just think that people called racist merely did something that displeased the establishment.


If you ignore what people think don't be surprised if they vote for someone who they think does not ignore them; I think this is the take-home message.


In some respect it is beautifully democratic.


Let's just hope this time France does not elect a Far Right party, and let's hope the "mainstream" political elite gets their shit together before the next general election. We have had enough Trumps and Brexits already.

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.

Blackmail or not?

So Brussels will give an ultimatum to Poland and Hungary about the migrant quotas: accept them or leave the EU. The justification?

"They will have to make a choice: are they in the European system or not? You cannot blackmail the EU, unity has a price"


Ehm.

Isn't this blackmail? You can argue about accepting a Brussels mandate that was not exactly debated or decided upon democratically between member states, but you justify an ultimatum (aka blackmail) by saying you can't blackmail?

Woa.

Victim blaming is fine, when it's not us

So every time you have a terror attack - 9/11 especially -, usually it's a sign of bad taste and horrible personality to suggest the country which fell victim to the attack may had something to do with why the attack was perpetrated. So the last seven-eight decades of US policies in the Middle East had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and if you mentioned that they might, you were defiling the memory of the innocent victims, and were an America-hater, who should really just go and kill themselves silently, as they are beyond redemption. After all, claiming that the terrorists acted because of a grievance would justify their actions, right? And if we do this, then we use the lives of those innocent victims to further our agenda, right? Excusing the actions of the terrorists, that's what it is! This is not the right time to discuss these things, not while the bodies are still warm... so there will be no lessons learned. Ever.

(Which is a convenient stance because we don't need to take a look at ourselves, and it also has the added benefit of making it impossible to treat the root of the issue, hence we will always have a convenient threat we can point at when we chip away civil liberties, and bomb countries.)


The same is true with all the terror attacks that happened in Europe; saying that France's or Belgium's inability to assimilate large amount of immigrants might have something to do with what happened (they are rather be focusing on a straw men claiming the attackers were domestic born), that Germany's decision to let fresh immigrants in might have something to do with these things, that the UK's, France's actions in the Middle East and North Africa might have something to do with what happened, is an anathema. "Fringe" papers and websites (whose readership reaches into the high dozens) do discuss these connections, but "reputable" newspapers and other media outlets will never touch this topic; instead they present a whitewashed picture of ourselves, and how those scary terrorists are hating us for our freedoms.

But not when it comes to the Ruskies.

They are to be totally blamed for what happened. (Published mere days after the attack.) But, wait, the hypocrisy is not finished! After all, the Ruskies are responding with revenge (forgot about Afghanistan and Iraq yet?), and their foreign policy is repugnant... Definitely forgot about Iraq and Afghanistan, then.

The double standards are astonishing.

Addendum. Well, it didn't take long, did it? Hypocrites.

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.)

Concentration camps and migrants

So the Hungarian government has decided to set up guarded camps for asylum seekers until their application is processed, housing them in containers. This, obviously, set off a hysterical outburst from a lot of western newspapers, and the comment section of the NYT's facebook page filled up with Americans drawing parallels to cattle wagons and containers, and also brought up extermination camps.

Well, putting aside the lack of historical knowledge, and the fact that these containers are the very same ones workers use as temporary housing at building sites (and nobody complains about exterminating them, or keeping them in inhumane conditions), and the fact that the present clusterfuck in the Middle East is principally the US' fault (Americans don't like to clean up their own mess, but are quite judgemental of people who are left with it), let's look at this issue, shall we?

First issue. A large portion of these migrants are not war refugees; this has been established over and over and over. Bangladesh, Morocco, Pakistan, and Tunis (among others) are NOT war-torn countries.

Second issue (which ties in with the whole "closing the borders" thing): Hungary is on the Schengen border. (Well, Greece is too, but nobody expects them to be able to close it.) Hence it is duty bound to protect the border. Even Merkel is talking about protecting the borders, and stopping the influx of undesirable elements, even though she also screamed murder when this protection actually was taking place. Just to recap: the borders are not closed. Anyone can go through the border control points, and apply for asylum. The illegal border crossing was stopped by erecting a fence. You come in, you apply for asylum, you wait. Whereas the 1.5 million people ending up in Germany came through the fields, and did not stop until Germany to apply for asylum. Which is not according to the rules. In fact, it's highly illegal.

Third issue: terrorism and other shenanigans. The Germans lost about 130 000 people. They don't know where they are. They can't be reached after they submitted their paperwork. A lot of rejected asylum seekers -no surprise- also disappeared. A sexual predator or two, a couple of terrorists also have known to disappear until they surfaced with their dicks in some poor kid, or behind the wheels of a high-jacked truck. So, with the knowledge that there is free movement within the Schengen zone I really, really would like to ask anyone who's complaining how they envision trying to keep the undesirables under control. Ahmed the terrorist can come in, claim asylum, and then disappear if you don't keep him in one place. During the process you might find out that he was sucking some ISIS boss' dick, or cutting heads off in his free time, it's too late; he is already in Germany or wherever, planning to do what terrorists do.

So I would genuinely be curious how you guys expect to screen hundreds of thousands of people and how you think you can deport them in case their application is rejected, if they are free to bum around the whole of EU.