What the Jews say about Hungary: the truth

Remove all ads!

As long as they don't bring any weapons without proper license, fine for me (Brad Pitt movie raided by Hungarian anti-terrorism unit) You know, we don't have Usama fans for practising, so Pitt and his zombies did it too.

 

What the Jews REALLY say about Hungary:

Spoiler

Oy, why would you wanna go there? Your Uncle Lenny has a lovely two-bedroom in Sarasota - just remodeled, ya know. Breakfast nook. Pool. To die for. Says we can stay there anytime, no big whoop. Besides, Hungary - ya know that's where those Kardashington hussies are from. Who needs that? Oy, ya givin' me such a headache. Give ya mother a kiss.

And there it is...the painful, awful TRUTH.



You're welcome.

 

Why oh why do I need to spread some rep around before giving it to DR again!

 

Because that's the way Orban wants it.

 

You should love Orban indeed. He shares three letters with your Obama, and has a name of same length. Once I misread some news (not sure to which direction).

Too bad he seems to prefer Bushes (or rather, Bushes seemed to prefer him)






It's hillarious nonetheless, how everyone doesn't seem to "care" about Hungary and then posts in this topic and learns the name Orban. Sure, just posting for fun I know, but still funny that -- thanks to me -- you encounter a name which is currently totally uninfluential and unimportant in the world politics, and would have never EVER heard of it if I hadn't posted walls of texts about it. On the other hand, you might not have heard of a Hungarian scientist Edward Teller, father of the U.S. hydrogen bomb and other stuff (who apparently had much bigger influence to the world than Orban ).

 

Obama wears pants.

Orban wears pants.

Can't be a coincidence.

 

Just to stay strictly on-topic:

For history lovers, one of my favourite anecdotes from 1941, when Hungary declared war on USA (as well):

 

Actually there have been some news regarding Hungary, if you are a regular on Paul Krugmans blog. It is not very flattering for Orban.

Here is the latest installment.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/hungary-misunderstood/.

There have also been some news in danish newspapers. Mainly regarding the infringement between Hungarys new constitution and the rules of the EU. This holds interest for Denmark as we are currently the chaircountry of the EU.

Regards

Defreni

 

Well, then, back on topic: Orban fought fights before. Knows how to handle it. He opposed the communists, he was beaten by police when protesting. The current situation is a piece of cake for him. He is cunning, and will reach what we Hungarians elected him for.

If Hungarians want so, we'll return to the values of the Crown of St. Stephen, no matter what Krugman, Barrosso, Clinton or anyone else tries to do. The EU is in an ideological crisis, losing what truly made it Europe; letting left-liberals tell what is considered "European" and what is not. But Orbán will soon get even more allies and followers in Europe, and the value relativism of liberals will be overcome by the true traditions (extended with modern values, where needed, of course). Being conservative does not mean you follow historical values without any adaptation!

The international pressure on Hungary is part of an ideological fight. This is also reflected by the fact that most attacks are political and didn't list valid (let alone legal) concrete arguments!

On a side note, it must be truly strange even for an American (who really has no reason to care for Hungary in this sense) that Paul Krugman analyses Hungarian statistics in his post and desperately tries to prove that Fidesz has no true support from Hungarian people:

What interest does a Paul Krugman have in stating that "the Hungarian public no longer supports the government"? This one statement discredits him completely, by the way; considering that, on the day his blog post was published,

It's the end of those times when people in foreign countries are going to tell what Hungarians need; especially when a democratically and constitutionally elected government, backed by hundreds of thousands of people even on the street, is governing. No Moscow, Washington or Brussels is going to say what Hungarian people need and think. EU may force some things on Hungary, but eventually, Hungary will achieve what Hungarians want.

All in all, it's an ideological fight; it's enough to read the title of Krugman's blog: "The Conscience of a Liberal". This pretty much summarizes the motivation of his writings. Well, if it's the conscience of a liberal, then Hungary is going to be the conscience of the conservative Europe.

 

How is a rational discussion possible when people felt the urge to declare they "don't care"? This discussion has long been not rational. (Nonetheless, actually, I rather meant the topic as a "message" to cease the incorrect beliefs about antisemitism that liberals seem to spread in Europe; so just a message for those who believe me; those who don't believe me -- well, I can't do anything. So for me, it's no problem that no rational discussion emerges in cases such as this.)

 

Baronius,
Krugman makes valid criticisms that you with a sweep of the hand dismiss - simply because he is a liberal. Oh my. Facts? Trifles. So the Liberalism discredits him?

Victor Orbàn was once a at least nominally a liberal himself. Fidesz was a member of the Liberal International. He transformed the party into a into a right-wing conservative party after the collapse of the national right. It was his nationalism that had him fall out of favour with the European liberals, since they figured he liked power more than principles.

But I found news from Hungary that you will like to read:

Indeed!

 

Not really. E.g. I pointed out that his main statement (that the Hungarian public does not support Orban anymore) was disproved on the same day when he made his blog post by a giant and peaceful protest on the streets of BP. A bigger protest than the opposition ever received.

 

B,
and that, assuming for the sake of argument that what you say is somewhat accurate, allows you to discount the entire rest of his article. Indeed, nothing he says in ther can be even remotely true after that.

I just read that before the rule regarding religions took effect there were 360 recognised churches in Hungary. The number now is 14.

Under the new rules Hare Krishna, and boy, do I find them obnoxious, are now banned from distributing free (naturally, vegetarian) food to the poor. How some of the changes for new churches in Hungary look at the receiving end, check this article.

 

Baronius

I read through the Krugman argument and found a couple of interesting points.

1. You had claimed earlier that Hungary was the only nation that had not gotten a new constitution after communists lost power-Krugman points out that the constitution was significantly changed in 1989 & 1990. So, in effect, Hungary already had a new constitution.

2. This person is rushing changes to Hungary's new constitution without letting people have a proper debate on if the changes are good ideas. In Wisconsin if we want to change the constitution it has been done (twice in my recent memory) but only after the changes are approved by the legislature twice (each in different terms) and then supported by a public referendum.

Now I understand the USA allows religious freedom to an excess (we allow mind control organizations to present themselves as real religions when they are likely scams).

But it looks like the current leading political figures in hungary are trying to decieve people about just how current their own constitution is and-instead of trying to go through a thoughtful process of what changes should be made if any are needed-trying to rush things through before much discussion can be had on if this is a good idea.

So Hungary's new leader is wrong on a fact (that supposedly Hungary's constitution was not updated after communism when it was) and wrong in how he deals with it (rushing changes rather than discussing them throughly).

Also, while the leader's political party is still the largest one the chart indicates that if the other political parties united against it they may actually wing in elections. Now maybe that loss in popularity is due to the constitutional changes and maybe it isn't. But either brings into question of if the population doesn't support the new changes. Perhaps the population may feel like they voted for this party to do one thing and instead it is doing another.

 

14 automatically recognized churches. After registration, if the other ones meet the objective conditions, the Parliament will accept them as well. Your constant argument that the "Parliament can deny it if it wants so" is invalid, because obviously, they would reason their decision properly. And yes, the Hungarian Parliament is the highest legislative and decision making body in Hungary. The fact Orban's party has 2/3 in it is a painful point for left-liberals, but that is how it works in democracy.

Constantly coming with the argument "but the majority cannot oppress the minority's right" is a poor attempt against Orban. Apart from political attacks, no proof exists that minority is oppressed (unless certain groups consider oppression that marriage is defined in Hungary as a consensual relationship between a man and a woman...). Liberals seem to miss the important point that can be summarized as: "the majority has rights too". Not just the minority.

People were asked. Moreover, the fact that we don't have a referendum about it is because that is how it works in our parliamentary democracy. For example, our President is also elected by the Parliament, and not by people directly. (Before someone would criticize Hungary for it: it works the same way in other countries too, e.g. Czech Republic.)

So it's only the result of an international propaganda that it looks like "people didn't want this new constitution". Orban clearly stated his program *before* the elections, and told that his party was going to change the constitution and how.

Moreover, the protests against the new constitution weren't nearly as huge as the pro-government peaceful rally on 21st January. If people are so unsatisfied as left-liberals present it internationally, how come there are no more and bigger protests? All the anti-government protests happen without serious issues. In 2006, during our socialist government, people were attacked by the police. Well, THAT was dictatoric. Not now. Everyone can protest peacefully. Yet not too many people feel so -- just the international hype implies it.

No, those were amendments. The statement was that all post-communist Eastern European countries got a new constitution except Hungary. It is true. And yes, from a legal point of view, this amended constitution was OK. But from a national point of view, it wasn't OK. Orban clearly stated before the elections that his party would like to change it, so everyone knew about it in time. And if one might say "it shouldn't have been changed for national reasons if it was legally OK", then I must say: national feelings are important for everyone. Just see what Obama says in these days (about how America is still the leader etc.), or look at France (and everywhere else).

Yes, it "looks like". Based on Paul Krugman. And based on the loud minority (gay, liberals, post-communist thinkers, etc.) Noone, noone took any right from gays, liberals or else. (Orban is sometimes compared to Putin by left-liberals. Yes, in Moscow, the gay rallies are often getting prohibited. In Budapest, their usual rally day -- I think in June -- is always allowed, and secured by the police.) Sure, the ideology is conservative, but that is how people wanted it at the elections. The elections were clean, no international or local organization or person ever questioned it. People knew what they vote for.

Yes, if they are united, they can win the elections. Very correct. And if the majority of the population supports the new changes and some minorities don't, AND those changes do not oppress the minority, then this is how a democracy works. There is no way to create law that suits everyone's expectations. What the international propaganda implies (i.e. that human rights are violated) are just political attacks. (As for the EU infringement proceedings, those are another case: if EU proves, even in court, that some Hungarian laws must be changed, then so be it. Of course, it's another matter that EU applies disgusting double standards, e.g. they did not do anything legally against the Slovak Language Law or the Benes Decrees -- you can check both on wikipedia -- but since we're a member of the EU, we must accept it.) So it's just an ideological fight: the left-liberals are afraid that Hungary made a precedent and they will lose their positions in other countries too. Since conservative, right-wing parties seem to get strong in many countries. (On a side note, Greece had a socialist government too... How similar, Hungary also had it until 2010 and the economy got so ruined that Orban has a damn hard job now...).


The conclusion is, Orban clearly told before the elections that they were going to create a new constitution if they win, according to their program and values. People knew about it very well.

So now it's just an international propaganda against it. Otherwise, how come that more people protested in the pro-government rally than against the government? How come that foreign groups and people seem to be more worried for Hungarian democracy than Hungarian people?

It's all about the international hype. A few laws may not partially conform the EU law, and as always, the Hungarian government will change them. There are hundreds of infringement proceedings in the EU against member countries at the moment (e.g. as I said, there are many times more such procedures against Belgium than against Hungary...).

 

I find the logic in this statement to be severely lacking. The power to selectively and arbitrarily deny certain groups church status is an invalid argument because the people in power would only do it with good intentions? Come on now. That's like saying "the argument that the U.S can detain American citizens indefinitely is invalid because the government would never abuse the privilege".

 

When I read B's arguments I can't decide for myself whether he is just utterly brazen, in fact, brazen bordering to insult, in presenting what is very obviously a lame ploy or so completely dumb that he doesn't get how pathetic an excuse for an argument he utters.

damedog,
you point out something important: In B's narrative, because dear leader is wise and just, he will not abuse the far reaching powers the new constitution vests in him, and because the parliament is wise and just, after all Fidesz has a 2/3 majority, they can't fail either. As a result, all criticisms about lack of checks and balances and laws easily allowing for abuse are irrelevant. Indeed, checks and balances are unnecessary as they would only be abused by liberals/leftliberals - they would only water down Orbán's probably divinely mandated mission to restore Hungary to it's long lost glory.

It's worth keeeping in mind the dishonesty with which Orban's troupe has provided misleading draft texts or misleading translations to rights groups or the EU (as if they, with their extensive language expertise wouldn't notice) - it was about buying time, and creating facts in the meanwhile. And after Orbán did that repeatedly, who can seriously blame critics for calling him deceitful? Oh, well, of course, there's that one guy...

 

There is no abuse because the decisions are based on guidelines and on the law. Noone talked about good intentions. Doesn't the US Congress selectively decide which countries to attack in war and which not? Or how do they define in the USA whether you're a potential terrorist who should be arrested immediately?

There are checks & balances. A few months ago, the constitutional court repealed a part of the media law. Those parts will be changed soon.

Ragusa suddenly started to care again No more yaawning, like in his initial post... I wonder when he will get tired again in his love for protecting poor oppressed Hungarian citizens.

 

But they still need a 2/3 majority, so they can comply with all guidelines and still be rejected. The potential for abuse is certainly there. Have a church that speaks out harshly against Hungarian policy? Cut off their funding, no matter how well they comply with the rules!