Molenbeek and the problem of terrorism in Europe

It seems like Western Europe has become an exporter of Islamic terrorism. France, Belgium, the United Kingdom have all had their share of radicalization, and their citizens joining ISIS... and committing acts of terror in their native lands where they grew up. There are no-go areas in these countries where it's surprisingly easy to get weapons, where the police and ambulances don't really dare to go, where the population is isolated by their choice and by their will from the rest of the society. These areas (Molenbeek is one example), with the very effective help of Saudi Arabia which does its darnest to export their brand of fundamentalist Islam, have essentially became breeding grounds for home-grown terrorism.

But it seems like nobody really cares. There are the usual talk about the victims, about how bad these terrorists are, but nobody really looks into their communities where they found shelter. Like it or not, the Muslim communities in these regions did nothing to expose these "few bad apples", which makes them accessories to these acts; they even attacked the police when they arrested Salah Abdeslam. Like it or not, these countries, by letting these no-go areas form and grow without intervention, allowed these communities to develop. You can use all the feel-good messages that #notallmuslims and that "they are not real Muslims", you probably should look into how the mastermind of the Paris attacks managed to evade detection in Belgium for four months before being captured. He was not living in some cave, or some isolated safe house. He was living in the heart of Belgium in a metropolis. Apparently in the very center of Europe, the fact that sizeable communities reject the values of the majority, and even commit violent acts against them, is something you are not supposed to mention in a polite company. In this light Orban's speech sounds like a wake-up call that nobody's going to heed. Perhaps because the Eastern part of the EU lacks the white guilt of the former colonial powers, they don't bind themselves into knots they cannot escape from. Who knows.

But one thing is for sure. I think in order to tackle this threat you really, really should address this issue. Before, you know, the far right grows strong enough to try to tackle it themselves both on the political arena and on the streets; because at this point it's going to be even less pretty.

The Guardian, the refugee crisis and Hungary -again

The current editorial of the Guardian really shows something incredible: a complete 180 from what they have been preaching before.

They claim the solution has been laid out for this crisis, and then list the following:
1. pan-European resettlement efforts
2. strengthening of the EU's external borders
3. to make a deal with Turkey
4. negotiated repatriation of economic migrants who are not entitled for asylum


Well, guess what. Point 1 is absolutely unenforcable; no country who is not volunteering can be forced, and no refugee who is unwilling to receive less benefits can be forced into this arrangement. The Schengen borders make sure of that. As soon as you drop your refugee in Hungary or Bulgaria, they'd get on the road again towards Germany. (As they did the first time around, instead of claiming asylum at their points of entry, like the law requires. If they had not respected the law then, they'd probably ignore it again.)

But points 2-4... really? This was exactly what Orban said for which he was called an extreme-right wing leader, a xenophobe, and a Nazi. The Guardian -and the rest of the Western media- was very critical of everyone who dared to suggest that perhaps the borders needed to be strengthened, that perhaps we should talk to Turkey (if we're fucking up countries in the Middle East), and perhaps there ARE people who are not war refugees, but economic migrants. To this day this is a contentious point; this is the first time I've ever seen the Guardian admitting to this possibility that not all refugee are fleeing war an persecution.

This leaves us where, exactly? Orban -who is not exactly your model politician, and would be quite nice if was voted out of power- got a tremendous boost of prestige for the way he handled the crisis. (The only political figure in the whole of EU who did not run around like a chicken with his head cut off. How scary is this thought?)
The Guardian essentially vindicated him. His suggestions are accepted -but at at time when it's way too late. You can close the barn door, but the horse has already bolted.

The Guardian talks about bridges to be mended, yet it does not acknowledge that it had not only slandered Orban over this year, but the whole of Hungary, depicting the population as the collection of some backwards xenophobic barbarians, saying this flat out, or simply implying. How do you expect cooperation after this?

The "EU" is not a rich block; the Central and Eastern European member states cannot deal with an influx of unemployable migrants (according to the Germans only 10% if the refugee population is employable), even IF there were jobs to be filled. However, unemployment and poverty is high; you can't expect these states to add extra burden. So that is a blatantly untrue statement... another little slip in the truth. Yes, it would be desirable if you could convince these countries, however, the way they were treated (Greece and Hungary in particular) will make sure that they will not be open to persuasion.

So again -we have too little, too late. Even The Guardian realized not all was perfect in their own little world, and now it proposed solutions to a problem that has increased in proportion hundredfold since these solutions were proposed by those evil Nazis, The Guardian now parrots.

Separate moves do make things worse -if only the Western media's and political establishment's refusal to face reality had not forced countries to act separately. Good job, guys. We can always trust you to do the right thing after you have exhausted every other choice.

The blatant hypocrisy about refugees in the West

So Manuel Valls is now saying the refugee crisis is destabilizing Europe, and that the borders need to be protected, and that we can't just take anyone who wanders across the borders.
Other Western politicians talked about the cultural effect the large influx of refugees causes, the financial burden, the need to protect the borders.

And yet, when Orban was saying (and doing) the very same thing not 6 months ago, he was a far-right politician, a racist, and a Nazi -not to mention the whole nation of Hungary along with him.

The hypocrisy is maddening. And one of the worst thing is that from a staunch anti-Fidesz voter I have became quite sympathetic to the asshole; after all, he still looks like a better alternative than his critics. If you judge someone by his enemies, Orban is actually a pretty good guy. And for this: fuck you Valls, fuck you Faymann, fuck you The Guardian, and Der Spiegel.
You had no right to make a pro-Orban thinker out of me.

Solution for America's gun problems? MORE guns!

Last year there were more mass shootings than days in the US... which kind of sucks. It's a really horrible situation, to be honest, and interestingly, a lot of the suggested solutions are absolutely, utterly idiotic. (The more sane ones are dismissed as stupid, on the other hand; it's a kind of bizarro world there.)

Let's take one argument for having more people with concealed weapons. The argument goes that if someone starts shooting, the concerned citizenry can draw their own guns, and take care of the perpetrator for good, before the SWAT and the National Guard arrives. Kind of a "Citizen Rambo" scenario.

Now, let's just think about this. A couple of years ago there was a shooting in New York: an armed person was gunned down by the police. There were several collateral victims of the shooting, and all of them were hit by bullets fired by the police. So in broad daylight, even trained professionals do shoot innocent bystanders by accident.

Now imagine the following scenario: you are watching the next Die Hard movie (title: Die Hard with a Hard-on), and you hear shots fired in the dark... obviously you pull your piece, and start shooting back - I guess aiming for the muzzle flash. So do other people, who, until that point were munching on popcorn, and slurping beverages. (In other words: they were not in the mindset for a gun battle, even if they are Navy Seals in their day job.) Who will they shoot at? You or the original shooter?

Can you imagine the carnage? Just seriously: how do you make sure the Citizen Rambos don't shoot each other? How do you make sure someone does not start shooting because he/she mistakes a sound (like a gunshot in the movie, or a backfiring engine) for an actual gunshot, and then triggers a massive free-for-all deathmatch between the moviegoers, or shoppers?

On the other hand, it'd be amusing to watch the security footage afterwards.

I guess.

Cologne and the press

There were a series of mass attacks on women during New Year's Eve; attacks which were coordinated, committed by people who "look African and Middle Eastern", and attacks which did not really get a lot of attention from the media for a long time. Even the police reported initially that all was well... The very first thing that came to my mind was the fact that the far right was actually using this as a warning cry to whip up the fear: they are coming to rape your daughters... we came to an age when closet Nazis are more dependable source of information than the mainstream media. The second thing actually reinforced this notion: it took an awful lot of time and misinformation for the facts to come out: it was not committed by Germans, or by people who have been living in Germany for decades. These attacks were prominently committed by newcomers, who were arriving as refugees.

The media outlets took up this story very slowly. The Guardian specifically was silent for five full days; even though they were really fast to comment on the Shirtgate, or on Mattelgate (the missing female figurine), and were really eager to jump to conclusions on refugee matters as well previously. But now they were taking their time. Suddenly everyone is surprised, as if this was not predicted before. Well, guess what. It has. Cairo and Sweden had experienced similar attacks (which was promptly covered up by the police); it was not really difficult to imagine something like this can happen in areas where refugees/economic migrants were present en masse. Suddenly people are surprised about the skewed sex ratio- oh, my, there's a lot of men in the crowd! Too bad, though they called everyone a Nazi who said the very same thing before; and interestingly this fact did not register for the photographers, either, who spent a year trying to pick up the odd little girl from the crowds of young men for emotional photos about the plight of the refugees.

The Guardian's rich and very excitable feminist writers are also silent; as if actual attacks of women's basic rights were not worth the effort. Even the victim-blaming from the Major of Cologne was left unmentioned... This cartoon sums up everything nicely.

But the Guardian was not silent on other matters. It was running a really long feature on the Two Tailed Dog party, in which they equated Orban with the Far Right (which he is not), and that idiot who charged a police station in France and got shot was featured prominently on the front page, too. It took five days for articles on Cologne to appear. One even called for asking for tough questions, but then avoided to do so.
One genius piece managed to have the following two quotes in the same article:

Abroad, Merkel will work for burden sharing, tougher measures to patrol Europe’s borders and seek solutions to stop the refugees at source

Already the venomous Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán is calling for tougher border controls,

Really?

It seems like the media by propagating the idea of uncontrolled migration boxed itself into a corner it cannot come out of without looking foolish or criminally negligent. And what they are doing now is just as bad.

The main problem is: this sort of behaviour completely surrenders the issue to the far right. It only gets stronger when the media does not report, lies, when the media and the police covers these things up, when you label everyone with concerns racist... you are responsible for turning away from the victims (the women who were assaulted), and you are responsible for the strengthening of the far right, and the gangs who mete out their own justice, and beat up Middle Eastern people on the street.

The atrocity in France and the refugees

One of the most annoying thing the media does it to frame the conversations in a light they wish it to, even when it comes to straw men, or simply by ignoring facts/realities.

Case to the point? The recent massacre in Paris. Worries about the waves of incoming immigrants (refugees) suddenly flared up. There were several reasons, most of them valid, most of them should be discussed. However, any and all of these were shut down by commentators and “opinion formers” by deciding that any such worries equate calling all refugees with terrorists. So came the opinion pieces from the NYT, Guardian, etc, claiming people blame the refugees, and that most of the perpetrators were French, anyway.

Well, let’s just think about this for a second, shall we?

There are several issues at work here. First, and foremost, yes, there are morons who think it's all the refugee's fault. They are not very numerous (I hope), and they are definitely not right. So, to the reasonable argument. The first is the infiltration of these so-called “fighters” using the masses of refugees as cover. This is a possibility, it might be actually happening; or it might not. But it is a valid concern. Disregarding it is not only stupid, but criminal. You leave yourself open to a vulnerability because of your ideology. However I revile the Daily Mail, their cartoon depicted this very danger; it did NOT equate all refugees to rats, unlike the Nazi cartoon it was put next to.

That’s one issue. Another issue is more long-term, and, I think, it holds more water. It’s about integration. It’s about the question of how to integrate a huge number of people into economies which were hit by the double whammy of economic crisis and forced austerity. People who might or might not be willing to integrate. As we have seen in France for several years, their Algerian population is having serious problems with fitting in. They live in ghettos, their job prospects are much poorer than the general population’s. The young have no future, they are not accepted by the French as one of them, and they are not Algerian anymore, either. So they get radicalized.

Similar dynamics can be seen in England: populations distinct from the host’s culture tend to live in enclaves, clinging to their own ways, even if it’s conflicting with their new country’s, and holding extremist beliefs that are violating their new country’s basic values. (Just a side-note, so that we’re clear. I’m talking about trends and statistics; I’m not generalizing to every Pakistani, every Indian, every Arab, or every Muslim.)

You can see the start of this process with the newcomers as well: unwilling to learn the language of their new country, trying to ban local celebrations, living in enclaves, and being hostile to others who “intrude” to their small communities. Bulgaria has reported that not many refugees wish to stay there due to the small amount of monthly stipend they’d get there; most of the refugees also did not wish to stay in Denmark because they expected more money in Sweden. It seems to me some came with a sense of entitlement; what will they think and do when they realize even Sweden and Germany are not the lands of milk and honey? What will their children think growing up in this bitter disappointment, and harsh realities of present day Europe? These communities will be breeding extremism; and this is happening in the richest countries of the continent. What do you think would happen to a couple of hundred thousand refugees living in Central and Eastern Europe? This is a very much valid concern for those countries –and for the richer ones where this is happening now. Ten-twenty years from now there will be masses of disenfranchised young bearing a grudge against their country, against the “other people” living there. They will be perfect recruiting material for extremists. They would be what the Parisian youths were and are: burning cars, and joining Jihads. Not talking about this honestly in the name of liberal values is also criminally stupid.

So no. Expressing worries about masses of new migrants while we see the examples of previous failed attempts of integration is not racism. It’s just common sense politicians should well be heading, because their refusal to even listen and talk about these issues will only boost the support of the far right, and make things worse for all involved.

Double standards, the Media, Migrants, Refugees and Hungary

This is what really infuriates me: when people/journalists/politicians (I don't think the latter two are actually full members of the Homo sapiens species) blatantly lie (you can lie by not talking about something, too) just to uphold a pre-conceived ideological stance regardless of facts. This leads to the incredible double standards the international media and politics treat Hungary in general, but the way they have been treating it since the whole issue with the refugees finally made it into international news. (Because it has been going on for a while before; first in the countries surrounding Iraq and Syria, and also with the people trying to cross the Mediterranean, and then it slowly edged up the Balkans to Hungary.

So if you have read the news over the last half year or so, Hungary has been an unworthy member of the Union because she wanted to suspend certain parts of Dublin III due to the high volume of the immigrant influx, and let people through without registration, then it was a Nazi regime full of racists for NOT letting people through without registering first. And then they became villains again when they let the trains through due to Germany unilaterally suspending the Schengen agreement, which has allowed them to let the refugees through without registration. Then they decided to build a fence on the border to protect the Schengen borders as it was their duty as a Schengen country (which DOES NOT mean they closed the borders, regardless of what the media or certain organizations say; it means they cannot enter whenever they wish to, but have to use the proper border crossings), despite of the fact that several other EU members already had fences in place. It's rich, when a French politician is condemning Hungary for building fences, when they themselves had been fencing off the Channel tunnel and Calais previously. Or when the same douche is condemning police violence when they used riot police to clear out camps.

When Orban put up the idiotic anti-immigration posters, the whole world was up in arms; when the Danish publish similar adverts in the Middle East, it's fine.

When Croatia boasted they'd be more humane than those bestial Hungarians, and then not two days later closed their own borders, sent armed people over the Croatian-Hungarian border to dump refugees there, and channelled refugees through Slovenia, nobody bat an eye, though. (In fact, the Guardian was still praising them for being humane while they were already doing much worse than anyone in the EU has so far; their behaviour might not have matched the image the Guardian was building, but the facts did not deter them.) When the refugees who refuse to get registered (and being urged not to do so by certain organizations) on their own decide to occupy a railway station, it's Hungary at fault. When they decide to go on foot to the border, because -guess what- without valid papers you cannot just cross borders, it's Hungary at fault. I guess if they were taken off the streets by force, and made to stay in camps, it would have been Hungary's fault, too. (By the way, nobody mentioned how disruptive a lot of these people were around Debrecen and other places where refugee camps were built. Mentioning it would have been politically incorrect. The resulting animosity -which has not turned into violence, unlike in Germany-, was, however a sure sign that all Hungarians are Nazis. Nobody mentions that they refuse to obey the laws of the European Union; the same laws Hungary was trying to enforce, for which she was condemned -even though she would have been condemned if she had NOT tried to enforce them, too. )

When several people broke through a razor wire fence, and the riot police had to intervene, the images were of weeping, scared children with water cannons in the background in the international news, and came the usual condemnations. Never mind that if you watched the very same footage in its entirety, you'd have seen that the police reacted to a crowd storming the border, AND the child in question was dragged in front of a water jet against her will. Same thing with the policemen-throwing-food-at-the-masses video: the first few seconds, where the crowd loses patience and rushes forward the tables where the food is being distributed, are lost somehow. And now, the Austrians building a fence (which is not a fence, apparently), and employ the riot police to force back a violent crowd, and no international finger-wagging, and nobody is calling then Nazis. Neither were any objections when the French, Macedonian and Bulgarian riot police treated the refugees with appalling brutality. If the Slovenians use tear gas, that's fine, too... it only merits a small article, not the whole treatment. That does not count, apparently.

When a Hungarian camera-woman trips and kicks people in a crowd that's rushing her (who knows, she might have been just panicking; let's give her at least the benefit of the doubt), suddenly the whole country is composed of Nazis and racists. (Depending on who you ask.) But the fact that in Germany Neo-Nazis are actually demonstrating, setting fire to buildings housing refugees on a daily basis, and commit other acts of violence is somehow not advertised, or condemned the whole German nation as a bunch of Nazis. (Obviously they are reported, but  You only see the welcoming German crowds, as opposed to those barbaric, Nazi Hungarians. Never you mind that there were thousands of volunteers helping, and only very sporadic acts of violence (I can recall two, which includes the camerawoman).

And the Hungarian political left (and the so-called intellectual elite) happily assisted to drag the country's name in the mud for their own petty political purposes, forgetting that the only thing they can actually achieve is to strengthen Orban's position, which is NOT something I (and many other Hungarians) wish to see. They live in this strange, alternative universe, where Hungary is a Fascist dictatorship, and only they represent the worthy elements of the non-racist Hungarian population... It's bizarre.
Whatever the motivation of the writers and commenters are, the sad fact is: so far, in this whole mess, only this asshole (Orban) behaved with consistency, in line with the legal obligations, AND with any form of foresight. If it was up to Gyurcsany or any of the other douches, the country would be full of people it is not equipped to feed and house. Unlike Germany, Hungary is low on resources, and does NOT have a workforce shortage. In fact, there's a horrible unemployment right now, despite of all the hundreds of thousands who left the country to find work somewhere else in the EU.

 It seems to me the whole European Union has been running around like a headless chicken in the last six months. Certain politicians called Hungarians Nazis and racists because they tried to avoid drawing attention to the fact that they're half-way into prison already, and their population is very receptive to anti-Hungarian sentiments; others played the Nazi card because it made them feel warm and fuzzy about themselves (after all, they might have screwed over the Greek, but they are accepting a million refugees! Never you mind the issues of integration of such a large number of people, of how this does not actually solve any of the issues, and so on). The racist/Nazi card was played to the death by others as well: the Swedes, who are just hypocrites, and others because they were simple cunts, and thought they'd be safe on the Western side of the Hungarian border. (Which they were not, as soon as Merkel ignored the laws, as the recent events with Slovenia has demonstrated. So they started to build a fence, while claiming that Europe is no place for fences in the same time...)
Interestingly sometimes, someone actually gets it. But it's a rare occasion. Most of the time the voices of sanity are drowned by the self-righteous, self-serving condemnation of the "other".

I think what the original intention from the richer part of the Union was to let the poorer EU border countries become gigantic refugee holding camps (after all Dublin III serves this very purpose in this case), and when the Greek first, then Orban showed them a middle finger, they panicked, and did not know what to do. Now they have a gigantic mess in their hands, something they themselves created by

1. supporting the idiotic US/British/French interventions in the Middle East/Africa
2. relaying inconsistent messages about their refugee policies. Oh, poor Palestinian girl, we like you, but we can't have everyone come here. Oh, if only those Hungarians would let you, we'd have you all! Oh, even MORE is coming?? Who the fuck would have thought? Why are more people coming? Why aren't the border states doing something? Shit, put up the border control!!

So all in all. If you work for the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, Der Spiegel, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or really, any other news organization, OR you are a politician, I have one thing to tell you: go and screw yourselves you hypocritical douchenozzles. Go and look up the definition of "journalism", and of "integrity", and then really, really think about what you have done. And if you have ever believed even one word of these amoral idiots, then wake up. You have been lied to. They take you for a fool, manipulated you, as they have been doing for generations now. This case angers me for one obvious reason: they dragged my country's name into the mud. But the other reason I'm mad is a less selfish one: this case is a prime example how politics and the media fabricates the world around you. They don't report on events; they MAKE UP the world around us. They can make millions of people demonstrating disappear (just think of the 2003 anti-war protests, and their media coverage), and can fabricate outrage at will about anything. Facts matter not; they will make sure facts will not stand in the way of their agenda. They give you shit, and they tell you it's caviare; and you have been eating it up without a question in every single case you can think of. This is a prime example how those in power will play those without power against each other. Congratulations.