From the Art of Jon Hul

http://www.thepinupfiles.com/hul.html

Switzerland as an Example for the World

Switzerland as an Example for the World

From the desk of Richard Rahn on Wed, 2010-03-31 23:58

Economists, political scientists, reporters and pundits spend too much of their time looking at dysfunctional societies and trying to explain why there are poverty, joblessness and hopelessness. In many ways, Haiti is easy to explain - no rule of law and 200 years of corrupt and incompetent governments. Switzerland is the polar opposite. It has almost no corruption and has the rule of law with honest, competent judges and government administrators. The question should be, "What can we learn from the Switzerlands of the world about how to do things right" rather than, "What is wrong with the Haitis of the world?" Switzerland manages to run a smaller government as a share of gross domestic product than the United States and most other countries while providing a higher level of service, security, prosperity and freedom. How does it do that?

In many ways, Switzerland seems unlikely to be such a long-term global success story. It is a small country with religious and language differences; nevertheless, the Swiss have managed to live peaceably together for a long time. It has few natural resources, yet it has managed to have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. It has a world-class health care system, which is privately run. Health care insurance is subsidized, and everyone has access regardless of income, but there is no "public option."

Switzerland is not perfect, but it is clean, prosperous, well-managed, pleasant, humane and very free. In the more than three decades I have been coming to Switzerland, I have been convinced that the United States and the rest of the world can learn from many things the Swiss have done. The Swiss are practical rather than ideological, but they do revere liberty. They protect private property and free markets and restrain themselves from rampant deficit spending. The Swiss maintain a sound currency, which has been rising against the euro, dollar and pound. Capital, goods and services, with few exceptions, move freely into and out of the country.

Long ago, the Swiss understood that most things government needs to do and constructively does are at the local level. So, unlike in most modern nation-states, local government has the bulk of the resources and activities, while the central government remains relatively small and less important in the daily lives of the people. In the U.S., roughly two-thirds of government is at the federal level, and one third is at the state and local level. Switzerland is just the opposite, with roughly two-thirds of government being at the state (canton) and local level. Both the United States and Switzerland are federal republics. If one reads the Federalist Papers and the other works of the American Founding Fathers, it is clear they envisioned a nation that operates much more like Switzerland than one with the large central government the U.S. now has.

The maximum marginal tax rate at the federal level in Switzerland is about 11.5 percent, while in the U.S., it will be more than 40 percent as a result of Obamacare and the planned expiration of the George W. Bush tax-rate cuts at the end of this year. In Switzerland, maximum income tax rates in the cantons range from 10.9 percent in Zug to about 30 percent in places like Geneva. In the U.S., state and local income tax rates range from zero in places like Texas and Florida to roughly 12 percent in New York City and California. Thus, the overall maximum income tax rate in Switzerland ranges from roughly 20 percent to 40 percent, depending on location, while in the U.S., the maximum rate ranges from 40 percent to 51 percent.

Switzerland also does not impose a capital gains tax, and most cantons allow large deductions for interest and dividends. On the negative side, Switzerland imposes a value-added tax (VAT) and a very small wealth tax. On the positive side, the average combined federal-canton corporate tax rate is 21.3 percent (and may be as low as 11.8 percent in some places) while in the U.S., the average combined federal-state rate is more than 40 percent.

One of the things most misunderstood about the Swiss is their financial privacy laws, which they view as a human rights issue. Pierre Bessard, executive director of the Institut Constant de Rebecque in Lausanne, noted: "These laws are a relevant part of the Swiss tax system in that tax authorities do not have access to any financial information not expressly declared by taxpayers. However, there is an anonymous withholding tax levied on interest and dividend income paid to residents (and now EU nonresidents), who have the option of claiming a full refund when filing their tax returns. Bank secrecy laws in Switzerland underscore the principle of self-declaration in a contractlike relationship between citizens and government and reflect a moral imperative that individuals have a right to privacy. Indeed, the laws were significantly strengthened in 1934, helping German Jews protect their assets from Nazi expropriation. Today, bank secrecy performs the same role, providing a safe refuge for victims of religious persecution, ethnic discrimination, political harassment, fiscal oppression, government instability and crime."

Without Switzerland, the world would be a far less prosperous and more repressive place. The Swiss and other low-tax states provide the necessary tax competition to keep the high-tax states from totally oppressing their citizens. Financial privacy stops evildoers, whether criminal gangs or criminal governments, from totally expropriating the assets of innocents. It is ironic that many of the countries criticizing Switzerland are engaged in fiscal mismanagement, including the United States, and abuse of the basic human right of privacy.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4377

European unity: The Right and the Wrong Way

European unity: The Right and the Wrong Way

From the desk of George Handlery on Sat, 2010-04-17 08:55

What is the EU worth if there is real trouble? Hungary: Election day illusions. When violene is recast as a virtue.

1. Central and Western Europe’s existing states mirror the region’s multi-polarity. Neither the State nor the Church could centralize continent-wide their power in order to create the idealized unity and uniformity that these institutions have pursued. As a result, numerous entities could emerge and many of these managed to establish themselves as states. A fall-out product –and sometimes a causative force behind this process of fragmentation- has been the emergence of a multitude of idioms. These are all regarded as expressions of essential identity. It is illustrative of diversification that some of these languages are not even Indo-European. Through this process of fragmentation, a number of states could emerge. They survived the efforts of the likes of Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin who all attempted to create unity by force. The firming tradition of independence, distinguished by a “unique” language, geographic factors and “race” proved to be stronger than muscle-driven projects of unification.

World wars have made clear the dangers inherent in a divided continent whose entities, possibly dominated by chauvinism, are at each other’s throat. The logical and wise solution was to accept the unalterable composition of the region while pulling the fangs of violently competing nationalisms. In part, this demanded economic cooperation and political structures that could prevent enmities from rising and which could moderate differences once discord became discernible. Given the Soviet threat and the protecting US’ nudging, the foundations of today’s EU emerged. The purpose was to prevent conflict and to guarantee the security of what were by global standards essentially small states from aggression. This arrangement was not only to ward off external domination but also to preserve, besides independence, the unique identities of the participating countries.

As time passed, processes unfolded that is frequent enough to be tagged as the “iron law of bureaucracy”. To make anything happen that does not occur naturally, you need an organization. This organization will soon see as its purpose its prolonged existence, and not the task for which it has been created. The resulting association has no interest in liquidating itself by working too well. To secure the members’ wellbeing, the outfit will create new areas of activity to augment its importance, to render itself indispensable and to expand its payroll. This process shaped much of “Europe’s” institutions. The diversity of the members that were dragged into the EU through its forced process of expansion gives the “Apparat” more than only a larger stage to act. The lacking cohesion also justifies bureaucratic intervention to replace natural processes.

Accordingly, the principled non-membership of some countries is a provocation to “Brussels”. Outstanding on the list is Switzerland. Geographically, like in the Hitler era, she is a white spot in the center of Europe. More important, the Swiss system of federalism and popular sovereignty contradicts the EU’s system of governance. The country’s performance generated per capita wealth – check the statistics – make it into a desirable financial contributor to cover the perennial deficit that is built into the EU’s system.

Switzerland and the EU have a number of agreements that regulate common problems. One is the Schengen treaty. The agreement creates a largely border-less community and it regulates access to Europe’s territory. The referendum’s opponents that caused Switzerland to join had strong reservations. Now, regardless of the establishment’s attempts to cover up, the opposition’s earlier fears have become a proven fact.

Switzerland had a conflict with Libya, respectively with the Kaddafi family. Internationally that clan is a steady source of scandals and law breaking. The police of Geneva dared to apply the law an arrested Hannibal Kaddafi. Reacting, the “Guide” of the revolution took Swiss as hostages. After breaking a deal with the apologetic Swiss, Berne imposed a travel ban on Libya’s elite. Under Schengen rules, this meant that these 180 persons could not enter any Schengen country. The “Guide” disliked that. In retaliation, no EU citizen could enter Libya. Europe felt encircled and isolated. With that, a shameful process began. Italy took the lead. Berlusconi visited Tripoli and kissed the ring Kaddafi wears. Then Italy began to criticize Switzerland for involving Europe in its quarrel. The action received support. While the EU “mediates”, the Swiss have already revoked their ban, the clan can visit Europe, and the hostage remains in jail.

The lesson of all this is that whoever gets into trouble cannot count on the EU once the going gets tough. The union protects only against non-existing challenges and practices appeasement that even Chamberlain would envy. Concurrently Greece gets 40 billion to buy it out of self-caused troubles while other collapses and bailouts wait around the corner. Considering the little, that Europe, hiding under the American umbrella, had done to fend off the Soviet threat; all this should be no surprise. Even so, the case, indirectly a major geopolitical indicator, is a lesson that those that need to learn it will ignore.

2. The European Union is no more prepared to meet new challenges then it was willing to face old Soviet-era ones. The community’s attitudes have ossified during the time of the East-West conflict. That situation has been characterized by a balance upheld by American power and Europe’s under performance regardless of the threat to its existence.

3. Hungary’s elections have caused the right-of-center Fidesz party to defeat the Socialist. It even has a chance to attain a two-thirds majority. The primary challenge to the winner is the public’s belief that through fair redistribution, government policy can guarantee “the good life”. The country that in 1989 had the best chances to succeed is now an economic basket case. Only sacrifices can provide the foundations to overcome the damage of twenty lost years.  During that time, the majority, being economic idiots, supported the pursuit of a policy that promised miracles for little input. Another one of the challenges will be a radical right-wing opposition. Its voters come from previously Socialist districts. Explain that with the susceptibility to nurture false hopes. How this element will behave in the parliament of a hard-to-govern because gullible country, is open to conjecture.

4. Those that can be induced to march with their view limited by the blinding light of a shining utopia’s promised heaven, wind up arriving in hell.

5. There are ideologies of good original intention that advocate heaven on earth for mankind. Clouds gather once such utopias proceed from daydreaming to the taking power and exercising it to free mankind from the curse that had, before the “Revolution”, determined its history. Such strategies come paired with an idealized view of the possibilities of system-induced cooperation by people that are recast to be virtuous by a perfect order. It is at that juncture that evil people hijack projects of ordered brotherly love. Having gained power, the men that see their task as the creation of a new order, make a discovery. The people they have inherited from history are tainted by their sinful past. Accordingly, they are unable to live up to the norms of their postulated potential. When moral appeals fail, the choice for the redeemers is between coercion and retreat. The moral high ground created by the original fiction will then make violence designed to replace voluntarism appear to be a virtue.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4394

The Dissolution of Belgium

The Far Right and the Dissolution of Belgium

From the desk of Koenraad Elst on Thu, 2010-04-29 16:34

Foreign press correspondents in Brussels are telling their readers and viewers in the home country that the Flemish Far Right is clamouring for the divorce between Flanders and Wallonia. This is true in itself, but by obscuring the non-Right support for this demand and the non-Flemish Far-Right support for Belgian unity, it falsely suggests a natural and intrinsic connection between separatism and the Far Right.

Foreign press correspondents posted in Brussels to cover EU affairs, are once again showing how clueless they are about the internal politics of the federal Kingdom of Belgium. Faithfully copying the anti-Flemish hate daily Le Soir, they claim that the divorce between Flanders and Wallonia, once more on the horizon after the ignominious demise of the Prime Minister Yves Leterme's Federal Government, is a demand of the Flemish Far Right. In fact, the demand has far wider support, and conversely a part of the Belgian Far Right is the most militant supporter of Belgian unity.

The title in today's French News, "Far-right party calls for dissolution of Belgium", could easily be read as suggesting that there is something far-right about wanting the dissolution of Belgium. The party intended, the Vlaams Belang ("Flemish Interest"), has had Flemish independence as its the central plank in its platform since its foundation (as Vlaams Blok, "Flemish Bloc") in 1978. In that sense, the article's message is not exactly "news". But there is also a centrist party, the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA, New-Flemish Alliance), that advocates Flemish independence, for which its president Bart De Wever is the best-known and most effective pleader. Till recently there was also a leftist party, the Vlaams-Progressieven("Flemish-Progressives", now split, with the defectors joining the Socialist Parrty and the rump uniting with the Green Party) that wanted more radical Flemish autonomy though not outright independence. There still is a sizable non-party leftist movement, centred around the monthly Meervoud, that pulls no punches in advocating full independence.

Conversely, on the Walloon side, the Far Right is the most consistent in its opposition to the dissolution of Belgium. This is true of the main party, the Belgian Front National, as well as of its splinter parties and of non-party cores of far-rightist activism. There exists a separatist Walloon movement, with a highly fluctuating appeal among the general population, rarely aiming for independence and mostly for accession to France (rattachement, hence"rattachisme"), but this tendency is centrist or leftist. The Far Right strongly clings to the union with Flandres inside the Belgian Kingdom.

To put their position in perspective, it is necessary to understand the position of the Walloon or Belgian French-speaking mainstream. Belgium came about as an accident, a compromise imposed by Britain which opposed French expansion. The Belgian revolutionaries of 1830, some of whom were actually French, never wanted to create a separate new state, but wanted accession of all the wholly or partly or prospectively French-speaking parts of the Low Countries, since 1815 united in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, to France. On the Flemish side, only some Roman Catholic hard-liners wanted to break away from the Protestant-dominated Netherlands, the vast majority was satisfied enough with the status quo. So, nobody really wanted Belgium, it was only imposed by Britain (especially when Britain could arrange the choice of a king linked to the British monarchy) as the least harmful alternative to the break-away territory's accession to France, which the revolutionaries and their French allies were plotting.

A kind of Belgian identity was fostered by the second King, the notorious Leopold II, plunderer of the Congo. He not only gave the country a vast colony as a common project that could unite all entreprising Belgians, he also allowed some concessions to the oppressed Flemish because a Flemish component helped affirm the non-French identity of Belgium and hence its self-justification as a state separate from expansive France. The royal family had a genuine attachment to Belgium because it was their source of income, the Walloons were only won over by the enduring experience of being the dominant group in the new state, a position they wouldn't have held in France. Their love for Belgium was conditional on their privileges. That is why the calls for accession to France have become more outspoken as Wallonia became less dominant as a consequence of its economic decline.

At any rate, the mainstream Walloon parties take the option of accession to France into account even if it is not on their agenda right now. At present, they oppose the dissolution of Belgium because they want to extract all the profit they can get from the more successful Flemish economy through the Belgian state for as long as they can get away with it. At the same time, they are mentally fully prepared for Belgium's break-up and their own accession to their cultural motherland, France. Note that French TV stations are more popular among the Walloons than their own (let alone Flemish stations, which have nearly no Walloon viewer at all), and that French politics is followed and discussed with at least as much involvement as Belgian politics. Economically, the Walloon political class still prefer Belgium because it allows them to dole out goodies paid for with Flemish money, a lifestyle they would have to abandon under French rule. In the case of accession to France, the likely scenario is that France, eager enough to extend it territory and importance, would foot the bill for the Walloon share of the huge Belgian state debt, but only as a one-time bride-price, and that it would next enforce fiscal discipline, something unheard of among the present generation of Walloon politicians. So, they have monetary reasons to prefer Belgium, but otherwise wouldn't mind acceding to France.

The Walloon Far Right, by contrast, clings to the union with Flanders with a vengeance. One of the more intellectual reasons is that they care about history, and Wallonia has been united with the provinces to its north for centuries, under the Holy Roman and Habsburg empires, the Spanish and Dutch kingdoms, even under French revolutionary occupation, and of course in Belgium itself. Another historical factor is WW2, when Walloon collaborators with Nazi Germany joined the Waffen-SS with Belgian nationalist symbols including the Belgian flag and anthem, fighting side by side with Flemish volunteers who used Flemish nationalist symbols. The prime Belgian collaborator was of course the King, Leopold III, who was neither Flemish nor in favour of the country's break-up; even before German occupation, he had a very authoritarian view of politics and his own role in it. The number two was Léon Degrelle, leader of the Rex movement and of the Walloon unit in the Waffen-SS, again a non-Flemish pro-Belgian rightist.

So, rightist Belgian nationalism has a considerable historical pedigree. But the more pressing reason for Walloon opposition to the break-up of Belgium is immigration. Walloon rightists expect the Germanic nations to conduct a more realistic immigration policy. While the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are not exactly very strict against immigration, at least they have gradually adopted a more serious policy of immigration control. In Belgium, most Flemish parties favour a more restrictive immigration policy, whereas the mainstream Walloon parties all favour what amounts to an open-borders policy. Part of the reason is typically Belgian (immigrants as a demographic weapon against the Flemish majority), but part of it seems to be a wider French phenomenon. Among Walloon rightists, the impression exists that France is irredeemably lost to religious (Muslim) and racial (African) population replacement. A Flemish-majority Belgium seems to be a slightly better safeguard for Wallonia against the demographic flood of immigration.

Therefore, the French-speaking Far Right in Belgium is passionately attached to the preservation of Belgium's unity. They see a Flemish-majority Belgium as their historical homeland and as a bulwark against the tide of immigration, highly imperfect but nonetheless far preferable to France. While there is only an accidental connection between rightism and Flemish separatism, a platform shared between rightist and non-rightist Flemings, there is in the present circumstances a sound logical reasons for Walloon rightists to cling to Belgian unity and oppose separatism.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4413

Sweden: Immigrants Wage War

Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War

From the desk of Fjordman 

Last year I wrote an article about how Swedish society is disintegrating and is in danger of collapsing, at least in certain areas and regions. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The “Swedish model” would no longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but to a Eurabian horror story of utopian multiculturalism, socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration. Some thought I was exaggerating, and that talk of the possibility of a future civil war in Sweden was pure paranoia. Was it?

In a new sociological survey (pdf in Swedish, with brief English introduction) entitled “Vi krigar mot svenskarna” (“We’re waging a war against the Swedes”), young immigrants in the troubled city of Malmö have been interviewed about why they are involved in crime. Although it is not stated, most of the immigrant perpetrators are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where the Swedish media actually revealed the truth, the newspaper Aftonbladet reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries. This must be borne in mind whilst reading the following newspaper article:

Immigrants are “waging war” against Swedes through robbery

The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in sociology. “I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they rob other youths. It usually does not involve a lot of money,” she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.

Almost 90% of all robberies reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals. “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young robbers do not plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”
Why do they hate the Swedes so much? “Well, they hate us,” Petra Åkesson reports them as answering. “When a Swede goes shopping, the lady behind the counter gives him the money back into his hand, looks into his eyes and laughs. When we go shopping, she puts the money on the counter and looks the other way.” Åkesson, who is adopted from Sri Lanka and hence does not look like a native Swede, says it was not difficult to get the boys to talk about their crimes. Rather they were bragging about who had committed the most robberies. Malin Åkerström,a  professor in sociology, sees only one solution to the problem: “Jobs for everybody. If this entails a deregulation of the labor market to create more jobs, then we should do so.”

It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a “war,” and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such. This is completely in line with what I have posited before. The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or from foreign parents. The phenomenon is not restricted to Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This is happening in most Western European countries, as well as in other non muslim countries such as India. European jails are filling up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. One can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That is because they cannot, or do not want to, see the obvious: this is exactly how an invading army would behave: rape, pillage and bombing. If many of the Muslim immigrants see themselves as conquerors in a war, it all makes perfect sense.

Malmö in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet the number one priority for the political class in Sweden during this year’s national election campaign seems to be demonizing neighboring Denmark for “xenophobia” and a “brutal” debate about Muslim immigration. During last years Jihad riots in France, Sweden’s Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson criticised the way the French government handled the unrest in the country. “It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach.” Persson also rejected the idea of more local police as a “first step” in Sweden. “I don’t believe that’s the way we would choose in Sweden. To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line we have chosen to follow,” he said. Meanwhile, as their authorities have largely abandoned their third largest city to creeping anarchy, there is open talk among the native Swedes still remaining in Malmö of forming vigilante groups armed with baseball bats out of concern for their children’s safety. As I argued in another essay: If Arnold Schwarzenegger fails to get re-elected as Governor of California he may like to do a sequel to “Conan the Barbarian.” He could shoot it in Malmö. He will get the extras for free.

What happened to the famous Swedish nanny state, you say? Don’t Swedes pay the highest tax rates in the world? Yes, they do. But tens of billions of kroner, some say several hundred billions, are being spent every year on propping up rapidly growing communities of Muslim immigrants. Sweden has become the entire world’s welfare office, because the political elites have decided that massive Muslim immigration is “good for the economy.” Soon Sweden’s “army” may comprise no more than 5,000 men, five thousand troops to defend a nation more than three times the area of England. Moreover, it may take up to a year to assemble all of them, provided they are not on peacekeeping missions abroad. That Sweden might soon need a little peacekeeping at home seems to escape the establishment. In 2006 the celebrated Swedish welfare state has become the world’s largest pyramid scheme, an Enron with a national flag.

Although Sweden is an extreme example, similar stories could be told about much of Western Europe. As Mark Steyn points out, the Jihad in the streets of France looked like the early skirmishes of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and Multicultural stupidity. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters. At the same time, Europeans are paying some of the highest taxes in the world. We should remind our authorities that the most important task of the state – some would even claim it should be the only task of the state – is to uphold the rule of law in exchange for taxation. Since it is becoming pretty obvious that this is no longer the case in Eurabia, we should question whether these taxes are still legitimate, or whether they are simply disguised Jizya paid in the form of welfare to Muslims and our new Eurocrat aristocracy. Although not exactly the Boston Tea Party, perhaps the time has now come for a pan-European tax rebellion: We will no longer pay taxes until our authorities restore law and order and close the borders to Muslim immigration.

This is urgent. When enough people feel that the system is no longer working and that the social contract has been breached, the entire fabric of democratic society could unravel. What happens when the welfare state system breaks down, and there is no longer enough money to “grease” the increasing tensions between immigrants and native Europeans? And what happens when people discover that their own leaders, through the EU networks and the Euro-Arab Dialogue described by Bat Ye’or in her book “Eurabia,” have been encouraging all these Muslims to settle here in the first place? There will be massive unemployment, and tens of millions of people will feel angry, scared and humiliated, betrayed by the system, by society and by their own democratic leaders. This is a situation in some ways similar to the Great Depression that led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. Is this where we are heading once again, with fear, rising Fascism and political assassinations? The difference is that the “Jewish threat” in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the “Islamic threat” now is very real. However, it is precisely the trauma caused by the events of 70 years ago that is clouding our judgement this time, since any talk at all about the threat posed by Muslim immigration or about preserving our own culture is being dismissed as “the same rhetoric as the Nazis used against the Jews.” Europeans have been taught to be so scared of our own shadows that we are incapable of seeing that darkness can come from the outside, too. Maybe Europe will burn again, in part as a belated reaction to the horrors of Auschwitz.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

The Importance of Hungary

The Importance of Hungary

From the desk of George Handlery on Sat, 2010-05-01 09:06

When power for security is the deal, poverty is the result. Some Socialists and their neo-fascistic continuation. The advocates of a failed idea that now defend their loot. Washington’s leftist pet? Higher hurdles blocking the road to nowhere.

1. Socialists like to imply that some liberty and self-determination must be surrendered to attain the economic security they promise. Oddly, wherever they got power with this claim, they used their might to administer their wards into poverty and crisis. Here it might be added that not all socialists identify themselves by that label. A number of parties are, regardless of the colors they wear in the combat zone of politics, essentially socialists.

Take the case of the financially destabilized Greece. A party claiming to be right-of-center governed prior to the newly empowered Socialist. It contributed to bankruptcy by pursuing collectivist policies. Regardless of the feathers they wear, you can recognize this element. Its MO: promise the good life disbursed as a dividend of citizenship and claims to do so in exchange for trifles. Such is voting correctly to elect those who promise to hand out returns regardless of performance.

By a high correlation, economic collapse follows upon the grab of total power. The dictatorship that manages this will be able to suppress the reaction of disappointed expectations. You might think here of Cuba as a completed case. Add Venezuela on her way to dictatorial equalitarianism. Wherever, after the programmed failure of economic policies, society remains capable of retaking power from those that depend on the welting fruits of redistribution, elections can bring radical reversals.

This is the case in the voting concluded on April 25 in Hungary. The results are significant not because of an often maligned country. The case’ importance comes from the corrective trend. This points beyond a change of governors to the end of a system. Likely to be overlooked details furnish insights that reveal the alliances behind the formal label of parties.

2. The core of the following remarks has been jotted down prior to the conclusion of the election process. The reason for the extensive treatment is that the specifics illustrate the general. Horrified, the media reports that Hungary’s election results show the right wing and the extremist “Jobbik” at 17%. To some this is good news. Now they can report “the Fascists and Fidesz/Young Democrats” (gaining a 2/3 majority) have emerged as the winners”. Indeed, Jobbik is for this writer beyond the pale. However, the party is connected to the Socialist that equal Jobbik’s score – and who are just as reprehensible.

The interrelationship of the Socialists and Jobbik can be reconstructed by responding to “Who voted, why and how?” Uneducated retired seniors supported the Socialists. In part due to the rumor that, pensions earned during the Soviet era, will be revoked if the Young Democrats/Christian Democrats win. Fear is fed by experience. The Communists did annul the pensions of those that served the previous systems. Women often voted for the LMP, which is, under a new, flag, the old pink-liberal ally of the Reds. The new formation emerged once it became clear that the original Liberals, who, through their cooperation with the “Party” betrayed everything, would not make it into parliament. Jobbik’s votes came from previously socialist districts. Their nationally socialist roots show an affinity to the sales pitch of their internationalist brethren. The DNA’s similarities are supported by an affinity to use terms such as “struggle, war, fight, renewal.” What the Socialists call a “Zionist” is a “Jew” for the Jobbik. They also share the idea that their failed followers are victims of a conspiracy that rules the world. Accordingly, inequality is the product of misapplied justice and is, therefore, in not related to ability and performance.

3. It is legitimate for the international press to bemoan the rise of the Jobbik (The Better Ones). Illegitimate is this concern when the conservative right (Young and Christian Democrats) are mentioned so that the uninitiated will see them as the erect-walking-enabled section of the Jobbik.

4. Between the first and second round of the election, a socialist leader made a Freudian slip. She referred to her party as “we Commies”. Those willing to register it have always known that much. It is notable that the international opinion makers are unwilling to acknowledge what is locally general knowledge. Another distortion is equally disturbing. Regardless of their own totalitarian roots, the Socialists have received more votes than the rightist authoritarians have. Are killers, acting for an idea, to be preferred to the murderers in behalf of another? Is this a question of whose friends were massacred? Odd – but PC asks you to ignore this. It is stylish to bemoan the rise of the Jobbik. At the same time, only a few put their political stethoscope to the higher number that voted for a party with a more recent totalitarian record and a globally higher number of victims than Jobbik’s antecedents have managed.

5. The foregoing was served to the reader with a quote in mind. Roughly translated: “No one is as dangerous as are those representatives of a failed idea that cease to defend their ideal while they continue to protect their loot.” (The novelist Máray in 1947.)

6. Draw your own conclusions! In a number of districts, a second round had to be held. The outcome was to determine whether the conservative FIDESZ gets a two-thirds majority. In one district, the Socialist withdrew in favor of the Jobbik. In no case did Jobbik defer for the FIDESZ. Meanwhile, several leftists withdrew in favor of LMP, their new liberal-green refuge. The Socialist PM’s spokesman voted LMP.

7. This makes one to think nasty thoughts. The US’ Ambassador in Budapest is a political appointee of Obama. Recently the Washington Times discussed her business connection with Ms Pelosi’s clan. However, the real scandal might be something following the election’s first round. The results gave FIDESZ’ a majority and the brought demise of the Socialists and their despised fig-leaf left-liberal ally. That day America’s supposed representative received the LMP’s wise men. Apparently, someone conducting the Washington orchestra has discovered something. It is an affinity to the attempted new beginning of socialist liberalism rising out of the rubble left behind by the collapse of their compromised original formation.

8. FIDESZ, while it reduces taxes and prunes numerous ministries, will also cause turbulence in Europe. The party will pester those that lie about their policies in Brussels. The special issues that Budapest’s “new management” will bring up is the treatment of minorities and the other relates to economics. (By the way! three of the four Roma parliamentarians are Young Democrats.) Just think of Greece’ creative bookkeeping and aspects of several coming bankruptcies that pertain to Hungary’s economic condition. The YDs’ new team feels that the Eurocrat sympathizers of the Socialists gave bailout money that enabled these to complete their term. The funds came under conditions that precluded their rational investment. Loans for activities that bring profit – good investments – would have guaranteed repayment. Allowing the rescue-funds to be used for continued, support payments to political favorites raised the hurdles blocking a road that led to nowhere.